This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-398 
entitled 'Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, 
Despite State Eligibility and Management Difficulties' which was 
released on March 14, 2008.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
Representatives: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

March 2008: 

Traffic Safety: 

Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State Eligibility 
and Management Difficulties: 

GAO-08-398: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-398, a report to the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) included authorizations of 
nearly $2.2 billion for safety incentive grant programs to assist 
states in their efforts to reduce traffic fatalities. Administered by 
the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration (NHTSA), five of these programs provide incentive 
grants to states to implement legislation governing the use of safety 
belts and child safety seats, and promote activities to reduce alcohol-
impaired driving, improve motorcycle training and awareness, and 
improve traffic safety information systems. To help Congress prepare 
for the reauthorization of the surface transportation programs in 2009, 
this report provides information on (1) NHTSA’s status in awarding and 
overseeing states’ use of these five grants programs, (2) activities 
states have conducted using the grants and issues they have faced in 
applying for and implementing the grants, and (3) how NHTSA plans to 
evaluate the results of the grant programs and implications for 
reauthorizing the programs. 

To conduct this work, GAO interviewed DOT and state officials, analyzed 
safety reports from 50 states, and analyzed grant data from DOT and 7 
selected states. 

DOT officials generally agreed with the findings of the report and 
offered technical corrections that were incorporated, as appropriate. 

What GAO Found: 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $575 million to 
states for the five safety incentive grant programs; NHTSA uses several 
oversight processes to determine the extent to which states are meeting 
safety-related performance goals and to monitor how the states spend 
grant funds. The number of states receiving the grants generally 
remained constant or increased from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, although 
the extent to which states qualified for the different grant programs 
varied. For example, in 2006, 22 states received the Safety Belt Use 
grant and 5 states received the Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use 
grant because not all states were able to pass the laws that the grant 
programs required, while the majority of states received the other 
grants. To oversee states’ use of grants, NHTSA uses a performance-
based approach to assess state progress toward meeting safety goals and 
complements this assessment with oversight processes that monitor 
whether states are accomplishing the tasks that will allow the state to 
achieve its goals. This approach allows NHTSA to be involved throughout 
the lifecycle of state grants. In response to a mandate to evaluate the 
effectiveness of NHTSA’s oversight process, GAO plans to issue a report 
in July 2008. 

States are planning and implementing safety improvement activities 
using grant funds, but the structure of the grant programs has created 
eligibility and management difficulties for states. The activities 
generally fall within five categories—education and training, media and 
public information, enforcement, data and technology, and 
infrastructure improvements. Safety officials GAO spoke with in seven 
selected states agree that the safety incentive grant programs are 
assisting states in implementing activities that address key safety 
issues and meeting goals and performance measures established in state 
highway safety plans. However, state safety officials also noted 
difficulties in passing laws to meet eligibility requirements for some 
grant programs, as well as managing grant applications, deadlines, and 
timing. For example, not all states have passed a primary safety belt 
law, which allows law enforcement officers to stop a driver for not 
wearing a safety belt and is required to qualify for a Safety Belt Use 
grant. The selected states have also had difficulty managing the 
multiple grant applications, which are all due within a 3-month period. 
NHTSA officials acknowledge state officials’ concerns but noted they 
cannot address the concerns because the difficulties stem from the 
grant requirements established in SAFETEA-LU. 

NHTSA plans to develop additional performance measures to evaluate the 
results of these grant programs, but state performance is generally not 
tied to receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance 
accountability mechanisms as well as issues described above that states 
face in using grants raise implications for reauthorization. Congress 
will be faced with deciding whether the grant programs could be 
designed differently to allow states more flexibility in using grant 
funds and to focus more specifically on performance accountability, as 
some have advocated. However, these changes would require improved 
safety data and a robust accountability system. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.GAO-08-398]. For more information, contact 
Katherine A. Siggerud at (202) 512-6570 or siggerudk@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

NHTSA Has Awarded Grants and Uses Several Oversight Processes to Assess 
States' Progress toward Safety Goals and Monitor States' Use of Grant 
Funds: 

States Are Planning and Implementing Safety Improvement Activities, but 
the Structure of the Grant Programs Has Created Eligibility and 
Management Difficulties: 

NHTSA Plans to Develop More Comprehensive Performance Measures; 
Performance Accountability Mechanisms and Issues States Face in Using 
Grants Raise Implications for Reauthorization: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: States Receiving Safety Belt Use Grants: 

Appendix III: States Receiving Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use 
Grants: 

Appendix IV: States Awarded Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures 
Grants: 

Appendix V: States Awarded Motorcyclist Safety Grants: 

Appendix VI: States Awarded Traffic Safety Information Systems Grants: 

Appendix VII: DOT's 2003 Reauthorization Proposal: 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Traffic Safety Grant Programs in SAFETEA-LU: 

Table 2: Categories of Activities Funded Using Traffic Safety Grants: 

Table 3: States' Efforts to Pass Primary Safety Belt Legislation, 2003- 
2007: 

Table 4: States' Efforts to Pass Child Safety and Booster Seat 
Legislation, 2003-2007: 

Table 5: States' Efforts to Meet Programmatic Criteria for the Impaired 
Driving Grant: 

Table 6: Awards and Expenditures of Incentive Grants: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Trends in Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate (1997 to 
2006): 

Figure 2: Number of States Awarded Safety Grants and Amount of Grants 
Authorized and Awarded, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007: 

Figure 3: Application Deadlines, Award Dates, and Dates Funds Were 
Available, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007: 

Figure 4: Timeline for NHTSA to Provide Guidance to States: 

Figure 5: Application Deadlines for SAFETEA-LU Incentive Grants: 

Figure 6: DOT Performance Measures and NHTSA Intermediate Outcome 
Measures: 

Abbreviations: 

AAA: American Automobile Association: 

ABATE: American Bikers Aimed Toward Education: 

BAC: blood alcohol content: 

BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

DOT IG: Department of Transportation Inspector General: 

DUI: driving under the influence: 

DWI: driving while intoxicated: 

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration: 

FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: 

GHSA: Governors Highway Safety Administration: 

GTS: Grants Tracking System: 

IIHS: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: 

MADD: Mothers Against Drunk Driving: 

NCSL: National Conference of State Legislatures: 

NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users: 

TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: 

VMT: vehicle miles traveled: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

March 14, 2008: 

The Honorable James L. Oberstar: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John L. Mica: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

More than 42,600 people were killed in traffic accidents in 2006. Of 
these fatalities, nearly 40 percent were motor vehicle passengers who 
were not using safety belts or proper child restraints, about 35 
percent involved a driver with a blood alcohol content that was over 
the legal limit, and about 11 percent were motorcycle riders.[Footnote 
1] In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation 
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized nearly $2.2 
billion from fiscal year 2006 through 2009 for safety incentive grant 
programs to assist states in their efforts to reduce motor vehicle and 
other fatalities. Administered by the Department of Transportation's 
(DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), five of 
these programs provide grants to states as an incentive to implement 
legislation governing the use of safety belts and child safety seats 
and promote activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, promote 
motorcycle training and awareness, and improve traffic safety 
information systems. 

To prepare for the reauthorization of the surface transportation 
programs in 2009 and the opportunity to consider changes in the 
programs' structure, you requested that we assess NHTSA's and states' 
implementation of the five safety incentive grant programs concerning 
safety belts and child safety seats, alcohol-impaired driving, 
motorcycle training and awareness, and traffic safety information 
systems. Accordingly, this report addresses (1) NHTSA's status in 
awarding and overseeing states' use of these five grant programs, (2) 
activities states have conducted using the grants and difficulties 
states have faced in applying for and implementing the grants, and (3) 
how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant programs and 
implications for reauthorizing the programs. 

To determine the progress NHTSA has made in awarding and overseeing the 
five safety incentive grants, we reviewed documents and interviewed 
officials from NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and 
representatives from professional groups, including the Governors 
Highway Safety Association (GHSA), National Safety Council, and 
Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety. We also reviewed past GAO work 
and relied on our ongoing work on oversight to evaluate NHTSA's 
progress in overseeing the grants. To identify the activities states 
have conducted using the five safety incentive grants and the 
difficulties states have faced in applying for and implementing the 
grant programs, we interviewed state highway safety officials and 
reviewed documents from seven selected states: California, Illinois, 
New Jersey, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, and Vermont. We selected 
the states based on a combination of characteristics, including 
fatality rates, funding, and geographic distribution. In addition, we 
reviewed states' 2007 highway safety plans and 2006 annual reports for 
all 50 states to identify activities states are funding with the 
grants. To determine how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the 
five safety incentive grant programs and implications for 
reauthorization, we reviewed DOT's and NHTSA's performance measures and 
other documents, including NHTSA's 2002 reauthorization proposal and 
GAO reports on performance measures. We conducted this performance 
audit from March 2007 through March 2008 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. For details of our objectives, scope, and methodology, see 
appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded to eligible states about 
$576 million for five safety incentive grant programs established under 
SAFETEA-LU--about $11 million less than the authorized amount of $587 
million; NHTSA uses several oversight processes to determine the extent 
to which states are meeting safety-related performance goals that grant-
funded activities are designed to address and to monitor how the states 
spend grant funds. These five safety incentive grants cover the areas 
of safety belt use, child safety and booster seat use, impaired 
driving, motorcycle safety, and traffic safety information systems. In 
terms of awards, the number of states receiving the grants generally 
remained constant or increased from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, although 
the extent to which states qualified for the different grants varied. 
For example, in 2006, 22 states received the Safety Belt Use grant and 
5 states received the Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use grant 
because not all states were able to pass the laws the grant programs 
required. However, the majority of states received the other grants. 
State officials with whom we spoke generally found that the guidance 
NHTSA provided for completing the grant applications was helpful. 
However, state and NHTSA officials noted that the guidance from NHTSA 
headquarters and the regions for the traffic safety information systems 
grant was inconsistent, which resulted in some states having to provide 
additional information or revise their applications. NHTSA officials 
told us they were taking steps to remedy that inconsistency. In terms 
of overseeing states' use of grants, NHTSA uses a performance-based 
approach to assess state progress toward meeting safety goals and 
complements this assessment with oversight processes that monitor 
whether states are accomplishing the tasks that will allow the state to 
achieve its goals. By reviewing state performance plans, highway safety 
plans, and annual reports as well as by conducting special management 
reviews and monitoring state spending, NHTSA is involved throughout the 
lifecycle of state grants, allowing the agency to provide input on the 
development of state safety goals and performance measures and to 
oversee the implementation of safety programs and use of federal funds. 
In response to a legislative mandate to evaluate NHTSA's oversight 
process, GAO plans to issue a separate report on this issue in July 
2008. 

States are planning and implementing safety improvement activities 
using grant funds, but the structure of the grants has created 
eligibility and management difficulties for states. State highway 
safety officials are planning and implementing activities to address 
key traffic safety issues. These activities generally fall within five 
categories of activities--education and training, media and public 
information, enforcement, data and technology, and infrastructure 
improvements. Safety officials we spoke with in seven selected states 
agree that the safety incentive grant programs are assisting states in 
implementing activities that address key safety issues. State and local 
chapters of associations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, as well 
as state sheriffs and chiefs of police, also indicated that the issues 
the grants target are critical safety problems in their states. 
Furthermore, states are using the grants to address goals and 
performance measures established in state highway safety plans. While 
state safety officials agreed that the grants are helping states 
address key safety issues, they also noted difficulties in passing laws 
to meet eligibility requirements for some grants, as well as managing 
grant applications, deadlines, and timing. For example, not all states 
have passed a primary safety belt law, which allows law enforcement 
officers to stop a driver for not wearing a safety belt and is required 
to qualify for a Safety Belt Use grant. States have also had difficulty 
managing the multiple grant applications that state officials must 
submit in order to be considered for the grants; these applications are 
all due within 1-1/2 months. NHTSA officials acknowledge state 
officials' concerns but noted they cannot address them because the 
difficulties stem from the grant requirements built into the law 
itself. 

NHTSA plans to develop additional performance measures to evaluate the 
results of these grant programs, but state performance is generally not 
tied to the receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance 
accountability mechanisms, as well as issues described above that 
states face in using grants, raise implications for reauthorization. 
Although many states have enacted laws and implemented activities to 
meet the grants' criteria, the grants have not been in place long 
enough to assess their impact on fatalities, injuries, and crashes. 
NHTSA officials indicated they intend to rely on nationwide measures, 
such as passenger vehicle occupancy fatality rates, that the agency 
uses to assess the performance of its overall traffic safety program. 
However, these measures are not comprehensive. For example, the 
measures do not track behaviors that influence alcohol-related 
fatalities. NHTSA has an effort under way to develop more comprehensive 
measures that can be used at the federal and state levels. In addition, 
three of the five grants do not include performance accountability 
mechanisms that would link the receipt of grant funds to states' 
ability to meet those performance goals. These issues, as well as the 
difficulties states have faced in applying for and funding activities 
with the grants, raise implications for Congress to consider in 
reauthorizing the surface transportation program. For example, Congress 
will be faced with deciding whether to design the grant programs to 
allow states more flexibility in using grant funds and to focus more 
specifically on performance accountability, as some have advocated. 
However, these changes would require improved safety data and a robust 
accountability system. 

Background: 

In 2006, more than 42,600 people were killed in motor vehicle crashes. 
Overall, this represents a 1.5 percent increase in the number of 
fatalities from 1997 to 2006, although the fatality rate--fatalities 
per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT)--declined by approximately 
14 percent, from 1.65 in 1997 to 1.41 in 2006 (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Trends in Traffic Fatalities and Fatality Rate (1997 to 
2006): 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a combination line and vertical bar graph. The vertical 
axis of the graph represents fatalities from 0 to 50,000. The 
horizontal axis of the graph represents years from 1997 to 2006. The 
right vertical axis of the graph represents fatalities per 100 million 
vehicle miles traveled. The following data is approximated from the 
graph: 

Year: 1997; 
Total fatalities: approximately 42,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.65. 

Year: 1998; 
Total fatalities: approximately 40,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.6. 

Year: 1999; 
Total fatalities: approximately 40,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.55. 

Year: 2000; 
Total fatalities: approximately 41,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.5. 

Year: 2001; 
Total fatalities: approximately 41,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.45. 

Year: 2002; 
Total fatalities: approximately 42,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.45. 

Year: 2003; 
Total fatalities: approximately 42,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.425. 

Year: 2004; 
Total fatalities: approximately 42,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.41. 

Year: 2005; 
Total fatalities: approximately 43.000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.425. 

Year: 2006; 
Total fatalities: approximately 42,000; 
Fatalities per 100 million VMT: approximately 1.4. 

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA and FHWA data. 

[End of figure] 

Through SAFETEA-LU, Congress authorized nearly $2.2 billion for 4 
years, from fiscal years 2006 through 2009, for seven programs to 
provide safety grants to assist states in their efforts to reduce 
traffic fatalities (see table 1).[Footnote 2] This represents an 
increase of $172 million annually from the authorization levels under 
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).[Footnote 
3] States' highway safety offices use these funds to reimburse selected 
state and local organizations--nonprofit organizations, universities, 
hospitals, and law enforcement agencies--for conducting traffic safety 
improvement activities that have been approved by the state. 

Table 1: Traffic Safety Grant Programs in SAFETEA-LU: 

Grant programs: State and Community Highway Safety; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): $897. 

Grant programs: Occupant Protection; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): 100. 

Grant programs: Safety Belt Use; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): 498. 

Grant programs: Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): 25. 

Grant programs: Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): 515. 

Grant programs: Motorcyclist Safety; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): 25. 

Grant programs: State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): 138. 

Grant programs: Total; 
Authorized FY 2006-2009 funding (dollars in millions): $2,198. 

Source: SAFETEA-LU. 

[End of table] 

Two of these grant programs--State and Community Highway Safety and 
Occupant Protection--were largely unchanged by SAFETEA-LU.[Footnote 4] 
The State and Community Highway Safety grant provides highway safety 
funds for states through a formula based on each state's population and 
public road miles. All states are eligible to receive this grant after 
submitting a performance plan that establishes goals and performance 
measures to improve highway safety in the state, as well as a highway 
safety plan that describes activities to achieve those goals. The 
Occupant Protection grant provides incentive funds for states to adopt 
and implement programs to reduce deaths and injuries from riding 
"unrestrained" or "improperly restrained." To be eligible for this 
grant, states must meet four out of six criteria, some of which are 
also criteria for other safety incentive grants. One of these criteria 
is to pass a safety belt law providing for primary enforcement, 
[Footnote 5] which allows law enforcement officers to stop a driver for 
not wearing a safety belt. Transportation safety experts generally 
consider primary safety belt laws to be the most effective 
countermeasure to prevent traffic fatalities and injuries to vehicle 
occupants, and states with primary enforcement laws generally have 
lower fatality rates than states that do not have such laws.[Footnote 
6] States are required to provide matching funds for both grants; the 
state share required for the State and Community Highway Safety grant 
is at least 20 percent of the total program cost, while the state share 
for the Occupant Protection grant is at least 25 percent for the first 
and second years (beginning in 2003), 50 percent for the third and 
fourth years, and 75 percent for the fifth and sixth years. 

The remaining five grant programs--Safety Belt Use, Child Safety and 
Child Booster Seat Use, Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures, 
Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Safety Information Systems 
Improvement--were modified or added by SAFETEA-LU.[Footnote 7] States' 
ability to qualify for grants is exclusively determined by whether they 
meet the statutory grant qualification criteria established by SAFETEA- 
LU. 

Safety Belt Use: This one-time grant encourages states to enact and 
directly enforce safety belt use laws. States can use grant funds for a 
range of highway safety activities, including public education programs 
or construction to improve a hazardous roadway. To be awarded a grant, 
a state can qualify in one of three ways: 

* Enact a primary safety belt law after January 1, 2003, and certify 
that the law is enacted and will be enforced; these "new law states" 
receive priority in the award process and are awarded a one-time grant 
equal to 475 percent of the amount they were apportioned for their 
fiscal year 2003 State and Community Highway Safety grant. 

* Beginning in fiscal year 2008, certify that the state has achieved at 
least an 85 percent safety belt use rate in the two preceding calendar 
years. 

* If a state does not meet either of the first two criteria, and if 
funds remain after grants have been awarded to all states meeting those 
criteria, states that had a primary safety belt law in effect prior to 
2003, and certify the law is enacted and being enforced are eligible to 
receive a one-time grant equal to 200 percent of the amount they were 
apportioned for their fiscal year 2003 State and Community Highway 
Safety grant. 

In addition, NHTSA will allocate any grant funds remaining available on 
July 1, 2009, among all states that have in effect and are enforcing a 
primary safety belt law for all passenger motor vehicles as of that 
date. These funds will be allocated among the states in accordance with 
the formula used to determine the amount of the State and Community 
Highway Safety grant. 

The Safety Belt Use grant program authorized in SAFETEA-LU includes 
more stringent criteria than the corresponding TEA-21 incentive grant, 
which awarded grants to states based solely on improvements in safety 
belt use rates. Congress authorized $500 million over 5 years for the 
safety belt incentive grant authorized in TEA-21 and $498 million over 
4 years for the program authorized in SAFETEA-LU. There are no 
requirements for state matching funds. 

Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use (Child Safety and Booster 
Seat): This grant is designed to encourage states to enact and enforce 
booster seat laws.[Footnote 8] These grant funds may be used only for 
child restraint programs, including programs to enforce laws or train 
child safety professionals and parents on the proper use of child 
safety and booster seats. Up to 50 percent of the funds that a state 
receives under this grant may be used to purchase and distribute child 
restraints--both child safety and booster seats--for low-income 
families. To qualify for this grant, states must enact and enforce a 
law requiring any child riding in a passenger motor vehicle who is 
under the age of 8 to be secured in an appropriate child restraint 
system, unless the child weighs more than 65 pounds or is 4 feet 9 
inches or taller. Similar to the Safety Belt Use grant program, the 
criteria for the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant program adopted in 
the wake of SAFETEA-LU are more stringent than the corresponding pre- 
SAFETEA-LU grant program; states had to apply and then use the grant 
for child passenger protection education activities. Congress 
authorized $15 million for the child passenger protection education 
grant under TEA-21 and $25 million for the Child Safety and Booster 
Seat grant under SAFETEA-LU. States are also required to provide 
matching funds of at least 25 percent during the first 3 years and 50 
percent during the fourth year. 

Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures (Impaired Driving): This grant 
is designed to encourage states to implement enforcement, education, 
training, and other countermeasure activities to reduce alcohol- 
impaired driving. States can use the grant to implement these 
activities, such as training for law enforcement officers and 
advertising and educational campaigns that publicize sobriety 
checkpoints. States may also purchase equipment--such as blood alcohol 
content (BAC) testing devices--to assist officers in enforcement 
activities. States can qualify to receive this grant in three ways: (1) 
achieving an alcohol-related fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100 
million VMT, (2) being 1 of the 10 states with the highest alcohol- 
related fatality rate, or (3) meeting a minimum number of the eight 
programmatic criteria--three in fiscal year 2006, four in fiscal year 
2007, and five in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.[Footnote 9] The 
programmatic criteria are as follows: 

* Implement a program to conduct high-visibility enforcement campaigns 
using checkpoints or saturation patrols, along with paid and earned 
media; 

* Implement a program to educate judges and prosecutors about 
prosecuting and adjudicating offenders; 

* Implement a program to increase the rate of BAC testing of drivers 
involved in fatal crashes; 

* Enact legislation imposing stronger sanctions or additional penalties 
for high-risk drivers whose BAC is 0.15 or more; 

* Implement a program to rehabilitate repeat or high-risk offenders or 
refer them to a state-sanctioned DWI court; 

* Develop a strategy to prevent underage drivers from obtaining 
alcoholic beverages and to prevent persons of any age from making 
alcoholic beverages available to persons under 21; 

* Implement a program to suspend or revoke licenses for drivers who 
were apprehended while driving under the influence; or: 

* Implement a "self-sustaining impaired driving prevention program" in 
which a significant portion of DWI fines or surcharges collected are 
returned to communities for activities to reduce alcohol-impaired 
driving. 

While the Impaired Driving grants authorized by SAFETEA-LU are similar 
to the impaired driving grants authorized in TEA-21, the number of 
criteria a state must meet differs. Specifically, states had to meet 
more criteria for the TEA-21 grants, but the SAFETEA-LU grant criteria 
are more stringent.[Footnote 10] For example, the TEA-21 criteria 
required states to implement programs, whereas the SAFETEA-LU criteria 
may include legislative requirements. SAFETEA-LU more than doubled the 
funding--from $219.5 million to $515 million--authorized for the 
Impaired Driving grant program. States are also required to provide 
matching funds of at least 25 percent the first and second years and 50 
percent the third and fourth years. 

Motorcyclist Safety: SAFETEA-LU established a new incentive grant 
program to encourage states to adopt and implement programs to reduce 
the number of crashes involving motorcyclists. To be eligible to 
receive this grant, a state must meet one of six criteria in the first 
fiscal year and two of the criteria in the second and subsequent years. 
The criteria are as follows: 

* Implement a statewide training program for motorcycle riders; 

* Implement a program to promote motorcyclist awareness; 

* Achieve a reduction in fatalities and crashes involving motorcycles 
in the preceding year; 

* Implement a statewide impaired-driving program, including measures to 
reduce impaired motorcycle operation; 

* Achieve a reduction in fatalities and crashes involving impaired 
motorcyclists in the preceding year; or: 

* Use all fees collected from motorcyclists--such as motorcycle 
licensing and registration--for motorcycle programs. 

Funds under this grant program may be used for motorcyclist safety 
training and motorist awareness programs, including improvement of 
training curricula, delivery of training, recruitment or retention of 
motorcyclist safety instructors, and public awareness and outreach 
programs. States are not required to provide matching funds. 

State Traffic Safety Information Systems Improvement (Traffic Safety 
Information Systems): This grant program provides funding for states to 
adopt and implement programs to improve the timeliness, accuracy, 
completeness, uniformity, integration, and accessibility of state data 
needed to identify priorities for national, state, and local highway 
and traffic safety programs. The purpose of the grant program is to 
improve the compatibility and interoperability of states' data systems 
with each other and with national data systems, and enhance NHTSA's 
ability to analyze national trends in traffic safety. To qualify for a 
grant for the first year, a state must: 

* establish a multidisciplinary highway safety data and traffic records 
coordinating committee; 

* develop a multiyear safety data and traffic records strategic plan, 
approved by the coordinating committee and containing performance-based 
measures;[Footnote 11] and: 

* certify that it has adopted and is using the model data elements 
included in the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria and National 
Emergency Medical Service Information System determined by the 
Secretary to be useful, or certify that grant funds will be used toward 
adopting and using the most elements practicable. 

To qualify for a grant in subsequent years, a state must: 

* certify that an assessment or audit of the state traffic records 
system has been conducted or updated within the preceding 5 years, 

* certify that the coordinating committee continues to operate and 
supports the plan, 

* specify how the grant funds and any other state funds will support 
the plan, 

* demonstrate measurable progress toward achieving the goals and 
objectives identified in the plan, and: 

* submit a report showing measurable progress in implementing the plan. 

The eligibility requirements for this grant program are more stringent 
than under prior law. For example, states must demonstrate measurable 
progress to qualify for subsequent-year funding, whereas previously 
they only had to certify they had a traffic records committee and 
activities were funded with the grant regardless of the impact of the 
projects. Congress authorized $32 million in TEA-21 compared with $138 
million in SAFETEA-LU, a significant increase in funding. States are 
also required to provide matching funds of at least 20 percent of the 
total federal and state program costs. 

NHTSA Has Awarded Grants and Uses Several Oversight Processes to Assess 
States' Progress toward Safety Goals and Monitor States' Use of Grant 
Funds: 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded to eligible states about 
$576 million for the five safety grants--about $11 million less than 
the authorized amount of $587 million. According to NHTSA officials, 
the total amount of funds authorized was not awarded because fewer 
states were able to pass laws to become eligible for certain grants 
than anticipated. With the exception of the safety belt grant program, 
the number of states receiving the grants remained constant or 
increased from fiscal year 2006 to 2007, although the extent to which 
states qualified for the different grants varied, with fewer states 
receiving grants that require passing a law. NHTSA uses several 
oversight processes to determine the extent to which states are meeting 
safety-related performance goals that grant-funded activities are 
designed to address and monitor how the states spend grant funds. 
NHTSA's oversight processes have evolved over time in response to state 
concerns about restrictive NHTSA oversight[Footnote 12] and our prior 
recommendations that NHTSA ensure more consistent use of management and 
oversight tools, provide guidance to its regions on use of those tools, 
and provide a more consistent means of measuring progress toward 
highway safety goals.[Footnote 13] The DOT Office of Inspector General 
and we currently have reviews under way to evaluate the effectiveness 
of NHTSA's performance-based oversight approach. 

NHTSA Has Awarded Grants to States That Met Eligibility Criteria: 

In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, NHTSA awarded about $576 million for the 
five safety grant programs--about $11 million less than the authorized 
amount of $587 million--to states meeting statutory grant criteria (see 
figure 2). The unawarded funds were primarily for the Child Safety and 
Booster Seat grants in fiscal year 2006--$3.4 million, or over one-half 
of the authorized amount of $6 million--and for the Safety Belt Use 
grant in fiscal year 2007--$4.2 million.[Footnote 14] NHTSA officials 
determined that a number of states did not meet the statutory criteria 
contained in SAFETEA-LU for the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant. 
Consequently, the amount of awards for the Child Safety and Booster 
Seat grant in fiscal year 2006 was less than the amount authorized. The 
remainder of the $11 million was due to an across-the-board 1 percent 
rescission in fiscal year 2006. 

Figure 2: Number of States Awarded Safety Grants and Amount of Grants 
Authorized and Awarded, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal bar graph depicting the following data: 

Grant: Safety Belt Use; 
Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of states awarded grants: 22; 
Amount authorized: approximately $125 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $122 million. 

Grant: Safety Belt Use; 
Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of states awarded grants: 18; 
Amount authorized: approximately $125 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $121 million; 
Total amount authorized, 2006-2007: $249.0 million; 
Total amount awarded, 2006-2007: $243.6 million. 

Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat; 
Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of states awarded grants: 5; 
Amount authorized: approximately $6 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $2.5 million. 

Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat; 
Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of states awarded grants: 13; 
Amount authorized: approximately $6 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $6 million; 
Total amount authorized, 2006-2007: $12.0 million; 
Total amount awarded, 2006-2007: $8.6 million. 

Grant: Impaired Driving; 
Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of states awarded grants: 50; 
Amount authorized: approximately $120 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $118 million. 

Grant: Impaired Driving; 
Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of states awarded grants: 50; 
Amount authorized: approximately $125 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $124 million; 
Total amount authorized, 2006-2007: $245 million; 
Total amount awarded, 2006-2007: $242.8 million. 

Grant: Motorcyclist Safety; 
Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of states awarded grants: 44; 
Amount authorized: approximately $6 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $6 million. 

Grant: Motorcyclist Safety; 
Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of states awarded grants: 47; 
Amount authorized: approximately $6 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $6 million; 
Total amount authorized, 2006-2007: $12.0 million; 
Total amount awarded, 2006-2007: $11.9 million. 

Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems; 
Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of states awarded grants: 44; 
Amount authorized: approximately $35 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $35 million. 

Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems; 
Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of states awarded grants: 49; 
Amount authorized: approximately $35 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $35 million; 
Total amount authorized, 2006-2007: $69 million; 
Total amount awarded, 2006-2007: $68.7 million. 

Grant: Total for all grants; 
Fiscal year: 2006; 
Number of states awarded grants: 
Amount authorized: approximately $290 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $285 million. 

Grant: Total for all grants; 
Fiscal year: 2007; 
Number of states awarded grants: 
Amount authorized: approximately $297 million; 
Amount awarded: approximately $290 million; 
Total amount authorized, 2006-2007: $587.0 million; 
Total amount awarded, 2006-2007: $575.6 million. 

Source: NHTSA and SAFETEA-LU. 

[End of figure] 

From fiscal year 2006 to 2007, the number of states that received the 
five grants generally remained constant or increased, although the 
number of states[Footnote 15] varied by grant. With the exception of 
the Safety Belt Use grant, states maintained or increased participation 
in the grant programs. Specifically, the number of states eligible for 
the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant more than doubled from 5 to 13 
states, the number awarded the Impaired Driving grant held steady at 50 
states, and states awarded the Motorcyclist Safety grant and the 
Traffic Safety Information Systems grant increased from 44 states to 47 
and 49 states, respectively. Overall, 8 states have enacted and are 
enforcing a primary safety belt law to qualify for Safety Belt Use 
grants since December 31, 2002--the date specified in SAFETEA- 
LU.[Footnote 16] The 8 states represent a 50 percent increase in the 
number of states that previously had primary safety belt laws. The 
decline in the number of states receiving Safety Belt Use 
grants[Footnote 17]--from 22 states in fiscal year 2006 to 18 states in 
fiscal year 2007--reflects the fact that states passing a primary 
safety belt law for the first time received grants in a single year, 
while 16 states that had the law in place prior to 2003, received the 
grant over 2 years: 

* In fiscal year 2006, 6 states qualified for grants by enacting laws 
to implement and enforce primary safety belt laws, in addition to the 
16 states that had primary safety belt laws prior to 2003; these 6 
states received the full amount of their grants in fiscal year 2006, 
while the 16 states received a first installment of their grants. 

* In fiscal year 2007, 2 states enacted laws and received the full 
amount of their grants, and the 16 states received a second and final 
installment of their grants.[Footnote 18] 

The extent to which states received the different grants varied, with 
fewer states receiving grants that require passing a law. For example, 
as shown in appendixes II and III, fewer than half of the states 
qualified for grants that require legislation--the Safety Belt Use and 
the Child Safety and Booster Seat grants, while all states qualified 
for Impaired Driving grants and the majority qualified for the 
Motorcyclist Safety and Traffic Safety Information Systems grants (see 
apps. IV through VI). In contrast to the Safety Belt Use and Child 
Safety and Booster Seat grants, states could qualify for the Impaired 
Driving, Motorcyclist Safety, and Traffic Safety Information Systems 
grants by submitting plans for varied highway safety activities to be 
funded under those grants, such as motorcyclist training, alcohol 
enforcement activities, or new or enhanced information communication 
systems, without having to enact new legislation. 

NHTSA awards grants annually under the five safety incentive programs 
between June and September because the various grant programs require 
that states meet criteria by completing activities or enacting laws by 
a specified date in order to be eligible (see fig. 3). NHTSA assists 
states with applications--including reviewing applications--to meet 
application deadlines throughout the year. The application deadlines 
for all five grants are scheduled from June through August of the 
fiscal year to allow states sufficient time to meet eligibility 
requirements and receive awards in that fiscal year. For example, the 
Child Safety and Booster Seat Use grant program requires states to 
enact a law or revise an existing statute to require that children be 
restrained in a child safety seat meeting requirements established by 
the Secretary, which in turn requires that children under 8 years old 
be restrained properly. To qualify, states must have enacted a 
qualifying booster seat law by June 30. Consequently, NHTSA set a July 
1 application deadline for these grants, at which time states applying 
for this grant had to certify that the law met NHTSA's requirements and 
submit a copy of the law for NHTSA's review. For the Motorcyclist 
Safety grant program, NHTSA established an August 1 application 
deadline and required states to submit an application in the first year 
and in subsequent years provide certifications that its program meets 
the grant criteria, such as having a statewide motorcyclist training 
course or a statewide motorcyclist awareness program. NHTSA officials 
indicated they needed to give states time to meet the additional 
criteria in subsequent years and noted that most of these activities 
would be completed by June 30 of a given year. 

Figure 3: Application Deadlines, Award Dates, and Dates Funds Were 
Available, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the application deadlines, award 
dates, and dates funds were available for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 in 
timeline format. The following information is depicted: 

Grant: Safety Belt Use, fiscal year 2006; 
Application deadline: July; 
Award letter: July; 
Funding available: August. 

Grant: Safety Belt Use, fiscal year 2007; 
Application deadline: July; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat, fiscal year 2006; 
Application deadline: July; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat, fiscal year 2007; 
Application deadline: July; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Impaired driving, fiscal year 2006; 
Application deadline: August; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Impaired driving, fiscal year 2007; 
Application deadline: August; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Motorcyclist Safety, fiscal year, 2006; 
Application deadline: August; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Motorcyclist Safety, fiscal year, 2007; 
Application deadline: August; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems, fiscal year 2006; 
Application deadline: June; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems, fiscal year 2007; 
Application deadline: June; 
Award letter: September; 
Funding available: September. 

Source: NHTSA regulations and implementing guidelines, as well as state 
officials. 

[A] The award letter notifies the state it has been awarded a grant. 
Grant funds are usually available to states shortly after they receive 
their award letter. 

[B] If safety incentive grant funds are not used in the fiscal year in 
which they are awarded, they can be carried over and used in the 
following fiscal year. 

[End of figure] 

Within 2 to 3 months following the receipt of the applications, NHTSA 
reviewed grant applications and awarded the grants to the states. For 5 
of the 10 application periods over both fiscal years, NHTSA reviewed 
grant applications and awarded the grants to the states within 2 months 
following the application deadline. For example, in fiscal years 2006 
and 2007, NHTSA reviewed applications for the Impaired Driving and 
Motorcyclist Safety grants, issued letters notifying the states of the 
amounts awarded under each grant, and made funds available by September 
22 of each year following the application deadline of August 1. 
However, NHTSA took 3 months to review applications and award grants 
for the Safety Belt Use grants in fiscal year 2007 and the Child Safety 
and Booster Seat grant in both years. According to NHTSA officials, 
reviewing the individual state laws took more time than expected 
because of the large number of applications and the need to determine 
whether states met the statutory criteria. In some instances, the same 
NHTSA staff were involved in preparing documentation and reviewing 
application approval packages for multiple grant programs. 
Additionally, while applications for the Traffic Safety Information 
Systems grant program were due June 15, NHTSA awarded these grants in 
September. According to NHTSA officials, the NHTSA team reviewing the 
applications for these grants had to request additional or clarifying 
information from states based on their applications in an effort to 
assist as many states as possible to qualify. 

As part of the award process, NHTSA also assists states in applying for 
grants and meeting application deadlines. NHTSA issued guidance for 
three of the grant programs within 6 months of the passage of SAFETEA- 
LU in August 2005, while it issued the implementing regulations for the 
Impaired Driving and Motorcyclist Safety grant programs within 8 to 11 
months (see fig. 4). NHTSA officials explained that they chose the most 
expedient route for issuing guidance to the states in order to get the 
guidance out to the states as quickly as possible within relatively 
tight time frames. Because it takes longer to publish regulations, 
NHTSA issued implementing guidelines for three of the grant programs. 

Figure 4: Timeline for NHTSA to Provide Guidance to States: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of a timeline for NHTSA to provide 
guidance to states. The following information is depicted: 

Grant: Safety Belt Use; 
SAFETEA-LU enactment date: August 10, 2005; 
Grant announcement date or date of final rule: January 25, 2006; 
Time span: 5.6 months. 

Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat; 
SAFETEA-LU enactment date: August 10, 2005; 
Grant announcement date or date of final rule: January 31, 2006; 
Time span: 5.8 months. 

Grant: Impaired Driving; 
SAFETEA-LU enactment date: August 10, 2005; 
Grant announcement date or date of final rule: April 21, 2006; 
Time span: 8.5 months. 

Grant: Motorcyclist Safety; 
SAFETEA-LU enactment date: August 10, 2005; 
Grant announcement date or date of final rule: July 19, 2006; 
Time span: 11.4 months. 

Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems; 
SAFETEA-LU enactment date: August 10, 2005; 
Grant announcement date or date of final rule: February 2, 2006; 
Time span: 5.9 months. 

Source: NHTSA regulations and implementing guidelines. 

[End of figure] 

State officials we spoke with generally found NHTSA's guidance helpful. 
They told us that NHTSA headquarters and the regions provided 
information to help the states prepare applications. For example, 
NHTSA's regional offices provided the states with information on 
national priorities and letters indicating traffic safety areas on 
which states could focus their efforts to support the national goals. 
Some NHTSA regions also shared grant application review checklists with 
the states to help them complete their applications as much as possible 
before sending them to the region for review. In addition, for the 
Traffic Safety Information Systems grant, NHTSA hired contractors to 
meet with state officials to help them understand what NHTSA expected 
in a grant application. 

However, for the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program, the 
guidance from NHTSA headquarters and regions was inconsistent, which 
resulted in some states having to provide additional information or 
revise their applications. Some state officials explained they were 
frustrated by the application process because NHTSA headquarters 
frequently requested they provide additional or clarifying information 
to demonstrate measurable progress. However, according to officials 
from NHTSA headquarters and regions, the team in headquarters that 
reviewed the applications had different expectations from the NHTSA 
regions and states. When state officials worked closely with NHTSA 
regional officials to develop their applications, they believed that 
the applications were complete and that they qualified for the grants. 
After the review from NHTSA headquarters, they learned that additional 
work was needed on their application to qualify. According to NHTSA 
headquarters officials, in many instances, the states were asked to 
submit additional information and clarification because their initial 
applications lacked valid or accurately calculated performance measures 
or, in some cases, included no performance measures. NHTSA officials 
initially attributed these problems to the grant's criteria and more 
stringent requirements than under prior law; this grant requires that 
states clearly incorporate how they will measure progress and 
demonstrate quantifiable results in order to qualify for the grant in 
subsequent years. However, similar problems also occurred in the 
application process for fiscal year 2007 when states again received 
questions from NHTSA and had to clarify information or provide 
additional information to the review team. To address this issue, NHTSA 
has begun providing training to NHTSA regional officials so that they 
provide consistent guidance. In addition, several regions have 
established regional grant review teams similar to NHTSA headquarters 
grant review teams to ensure grants receive more complete reviews at 
the regional level. 

NHTSA Uses Several Oversight Processes to Assess States' Progress 
toward Safety Goals and Monitor States' Use of Grant Funds: 

NHTSA uses several processes to determine the extent to which states 
are meeting safety-related performance goals that grant-funded 
activities are designed to address and monitor how the states spend 
grant funds. Specifically, NHTSA uses a performance-based approach to 
assess state progress toward meeting safety goals and complements this 
assessment with oversight processes that monitor whether states are 
accomplishing the tasks that will allow the state to achieve its goals. 
NHTSA's performance-based approach primarily involves assessing states' 
progress in meeting safety-related performance goals by comparing state 
planning documents with annual reports on the state's performance and 
conducting special reviews of states not making adequate progress 
toward their goals. These activities create the opportunity for NHTSA 
to be involved throughout the lifecycle of state grants, allowing the 
agency to provide input on the development of state safety goals and 
performance measures and to oversee the implementation of safety 
programs and use of federal funds. 

* Establishing state safety goals and conducting activities to achieve 
the goals: Early in the calendar year, each state initiates a planning 
process to prioritize safety goals and develop a performance plan and 
highway safety plan for the upcoming fiscal year. These plans establish 
performance goals and objectives based on safety problems identified in 
each state and include activities the state funds with NHTSA's traffic 
safety grants that will help the state reach its goals. For example, 
Nevada's fiscal year 2008 plan identified impaired driving as the most 
common cause of fatal crashes and established a performance goal of 
reducing the number of fatalities to 5.75 per 100,000 people by 2008 
(which would be down from 6.31 in 2005). To achieve this goal, Nevada 
plans to devote about 28 percent of its federal funding to impaired- 
driving activities such as conducting highly publicized driving under 
the influence (DUI) enforcement activities and training prosecutors on 
DUI cases. To help states identify safety priorities and develop 
performance goals for the year, NHTSA provides each state with an 
analysis of state-level traffic safety data, such as fatality rates, 
seat belt use, and alcohol-related fatalities. The agency also shares 
information on countermeasures that address safety problems that are 
specific to the state. For example, NHTSA regional offices may 
recommend that states develop a statewide media plan regarding seat 
belt use, with specific emphasis on heightening media exposure in high- 
risk counties. NHTSA also informs states of countermeasures that other 
states have used through activities like regional conferences. NHTSA 
regional staff meet regularly with state highway safety staff during 
the planning process, providing guidance on national priorities and 
other technical assistance to help the state develop a plan that 
addresses key safety issues. States must submit performance plans and 
highway safety plans to NHTSA by September 1, and NHTSA responds with a 
formal letter documenting the agency's analysis of the plans and 
providing additional feedback. 

* Review of state progress toward state safety goals: In December of 
each year, states must submit to NHTSA regional offices a report on the 
previous fiscal year's program activities, including the programs 
funded by the safety grants. The regional offices assess these reports 
to determine state progress toward achieving the goals and performance 
measures identified in the state's performance plan. These assessments 
allow NHTSA to track state performance in improving safety outcomes and 
to provide feedback to states on strengths and weaknesses in the 
programs. 

* Assisting states not making progress toward safety goals: For states 
that are not making adequate progress in NHTSA's priority areas of 
reducing alcohol-related deaths or improving safety belt use, NHTSA 
conducts special management reviews. To identify states for impaired 
driving reviews, NHTSA analyzes national fatality data and compares 
state performance with national levels; to identify states for occupant 
protection reviews, NHTSA analyzes state-reported seat belt use rates 
from observational surveys, and compares those rates to the VMT- 
weighted average seat belt use of all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico. States with performance consistently below 
the national average are candidates for a special management review. 
These reviews, which are currently only conducted for impaired driving 
and occupant protection, focus on state management of a specific 
program area--such as those funded by the safety grants--to identify 
barriers to progress and make formal recommendations on strategies that 
could help the state improve safety outcomes. Special management 
reviews involve an on-site review lasting several days and include 
interviews with state staff, reviews of program files, a formalized 
report developed by NHTSA, and potentially creating a "performance 
enhancement plan," which establishes target dates for the completion of 
recommendations made in the review. As of September 2007, NHTSA 
conducted 29 special management reviews for fiscal years 2005 through 
2007. 

* Oversight processes to track state use of funding: Throughout the 
year, NHTSA monitors state grant management activities, including 
whether states are expending funds in a timely fashion and directing 
funds appropriately to the programs identified in the state's highway 
safety plan as having potential to address the state's safety goals. 
The primary tool NHTSA uses to monitor state spending is its Grants 
Tracking System (GTS), a Web-based application that allows NHTSA to 
track, approve, and release to states the grant funds available for 
highway safety programs. At the beginning of each fiscal year, states 
enter accounting information into GTS reflecting the total amount of 
funding the state may obligate that year and how much the state 
indicated in its highway safety plan it would spend on different 
programmatic areas. Then during the year, states enter data into GTS to 
indicate how grant funding is being spent, and NHTSA regional offices 
use GTS to monitor state spending by periodically reviewing financial 
data to ensure states are making progress in expending funds, meeting 
financial requirements, and using funding for the programs indicated in 
their plans. NHTSA monitors whether states deviate from their planned 
spending--for example, by shifting funding from an impaired driving 
program to a program addressing a safety goal that state data suggest 
is a lower priority--and can request additional justification if states 
make changes. GTS contains the requirements of each grant--for 
instance, the percentage of funding that states must match--and allows 
states to submit vouchers for reimbursement. Because the data entered 
into GTS include the total spent on a given grant, NHTSA regional 
offices also conduct on-site reviews of vouchers to examine 
documentation supporting these expenditures and determine whether the 
expenses were allowable, reasonable, related to the project, and 
expended within the grant year. 

* Assessing state grant management: In addition to monitoring 
throughout the year, NHTSA conducts more comprehensive on-site 
"management reviews" for each state once every 3 years to assess state 
operational practices to ensure efficient administration and effective 
planning, programming, implementation, and evaluation of the state's 
highway safety programs. 

This oversight approach has evolved over time in response to agency 
processes to identify areas for improvement, congressional and state 
concerns, and our prior recommendations. Prior to fiscal year 1998, 
NHTSA regulations required each state to submit a highway safety plan 
to NHTSA for approval. This plan detailed--down to the project level-- 
the activities the state proposed to implement with federal grant 
funding. However, in response to congressional and state concerns that 
NHTSA's project-by-project approval process was too restrictive, NHTSA 
adopted a performance-based approach in 1998. Specifically, states were 
required to submit a performance plan that identified key highway 
safety problems in the state and established goals and performance 
measures to address these problems. States still submitted the highway 
safety plan, but NHTSA no longer approved or disapproved individual 
projects contained in the plan unless those projects were not allowed 
under statutory limitations imposed on the various grants; rather, the 
agency determined whether the state submitted the plan in compliance 
with regulations. 

In a 2003 report, we identified problems with NHTSA's performance-based 
approach, noting inconsistencies among the NHTSA regional offices in 
the level of guidance to states on how to use safety grant 
funding.[Footnote 19] We recommended that NHTSA provide more specific 
guidance to regional offices on when to conduct reviews of state safety 
programs and how to measure progress toward meeting safety goals. In 
response to our recommendations and new direction from Congress, NHTSA 
clarified and revised its guidance to states on how best to craft 
highway safety plans, as well as the process for how the agency would 
conduct regular reviews of state use of grant funding. 

Both the Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOT IG) and 
GAO are required by law to evaluate NHTSA's oversight process since the 
agency initiated changes in 2005. The DOT IG's review will verify 
whether NHTSA developed and followed policies and procedures for 
conducting management reviews and special management reviews in 
accordance with our April 2003 recommendation, determine the extent to 
which NHTSA's reviews addressed states' safety performance measures, 
and identify best practices for improving NHTSA's oversight activities. 
To accomplish their review, officials from the IG told us that they 
accompanied NHTSA regional office staff on several reviews to observe 
the process and analyze management review reports, as well as 
underlying workpapers that supported the review's findings and 
conclusions. Our review will describe how NHTSA oversees state safety 
grants and the role of the State and Community Highway Safety Grant 
Program in state highway safety programs. Our report will be released 
in July 2008, and as of mid-February 2008, the DOT IG planned to 
release its report in the spring of 2008. 

States Are Planning and Implementing Safety Improvement Activities, but 
the Structure of the Grant Programs Has Created Eligibility and 
Management Difficulties: 

Using grant funds, states are planning and implementing safety 
improvement activities to address the key traffic safety issues in 
their states, but the structure of the grant programs has created 
eligibility difficulties for states, as well as management difficulties 
for governors' highway safety offices that administer the grants. State 
safety officials agreed that the grants are helping them address key 
safety issues but have found it challenging to meet eligibility 
requirements for some grant programs, particularly those requiring 
states to pass laws. In addition, state safety officials have faced 
management challenges involving multiple grant applications and 
deadlines. State safety officials also noted concerns about the timing 
of the grant awards and limitations on the amount of flexibility they 
have to use the funds. NHTSA officials agree with state officials' 
concerns, but noted that they cannot take action to address them 
because these issues are required by law. Any changes to the grant 
structure would have to be undertaken by Congress. 

States Are Planning and Implementing Safety Improvement Activities 
Using Grant Funds: 

For each grant, state highway safety officials are planning and 
implementing activities to address key traffic safety problems in their 
states. These activities generally fall within five categories of 
activities--education and training, media and public information, 
enforcement, data and technology, and infrastructure improvements (see 
table 2). Safety officials we spoke with in seven selected states agree 
that the safety incentive grant programs are assisting states in 
implementing activities that address key safety issues. State and local 
chapters of associations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) 
and state sheriffs and chiefs of police also indicated that the issues 
the grants target are critical safety problems in their states. 

Table 2: Categories of Activities Funded Using Traffic Safety 
Grants[A]: 

Grant program: Safety Belt Use; 
Education and training: [Check]; 
Media and public information: [Check]; 
Enforcement: [Check]; 
Data and technology: [Check]; 
Infrastructure improvements[B]: [Check]; 
Other: [Check]. 

Grant program: Child Safety and Booster Seat[C]; 
Education and training: [Check]; 
Media and public information: [Check]; 
Enforcement: [Check]; 
Data and technology: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure improvements[B]: [Empty]; 
Other: [Check]. 

Grant program: Impaired Driving; 
Education and training: [Check]; 
Media and public information: [Check]; 
Enforcement: [Check]; 
Data and technology: [Check]; 
Infrastructure improvements[B]: [Empty]; 
Other: [Check]. 

Grant program: Motorcyclist Safety; 
Education and training: [Check]; 
Media and public information: [Check]; 
Enforcement: [Empty]; 
Data and technology: [Empty]; 
Infrastructure improvements[B]: [Empty]; 
Other: [Check]. 

Grant program: Traffic Safety Information Systems; 
Education and training: [Empty]; 
Media and public information: [Empty]; 
Enforcement: [Empty]; 
Data and technology: [Check]; 
Infrastructure improvements[B]: [Empty]; 
Other: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO analysis of state 2007 highway safety plans and 2006 annual 
reports. 

[A] We reviewed the plans and reports for all 50 states to identify 
activities states are funding with the grants and categorized them into 
five key areas. 

[B] When states elect to use their Safety Belt Use grants for 
infrastructure improvements, funds are transferred from NHTSA to FHWA 
and then distributed to the appropriate state highway agency. The state 
highway safety offices do not have the lead in planning and 
implementing activities involving those infrastructure improvement 
funds: 

[C] In addition to the activities identified through the state 2007 
highway safety plans and 2006 annual reports, NHTSA officials also 
indicated that states have used the Child Safety and Booster Seat 
grants to fund enforcement activities, such as checkpoints and 
enforcement zones for child passenger safety violations. 

[End of table] 

Furthermore, states are using their grants to address goals and 
performance measures established in state highway safety plans. For 
example, although New Jersey had a 90 percent safety belt usage rate in 
2006, the state's 2007 highway safety plan indicates the state plans to 
continue efforts to increase safety belt usage rates by 2 percentage 
points, from 90 percent in 2006 to 92 percent in 2007. The state 
budgeted $1.3 million for safety belt enforcement to help reach this 
goal.[Footnote 20] Similarly, although California has made significant 
progress in reducing the frequency of impaired driving and related 
injuries and fatalities, alcohol remains the number one primary 
collision factor in fatal crashes in California. Consequently, the 
state has allocated $3.6 million of the Impaired Driving grant for DUI 
enforcement, education, and public information activities to 22 law 
enforcement agencies to achieve its goal of decreasing the number of 
persons killed in alcohol-involved collisions by 2 percent by December 
31, 2008.[Footnote 21] Also, given the rise in the rate of motorcycle 
fatalities, Illinois and several other states have set goals to reduce 
statewide motorcycle fatalities. Specifically, Illinois has allocated 
$104,000 toward developing a motorcycle awareness program to address 
its goal of reducing motorcycle fatalities from 9.8 percent of total 
fatalities in 2003 to 7 percent by January 2008. Additionally, as 
Massachusetts faces incomplete statewide data on injuries and 
fatalities, it has designated a portion of the Traffic Safety 
Information Systems grant for the development of an ambulance record 
information system in its 2007 highway safety plan. 

Because the structure of the Safety Belt Use grant program provides 
more flexibility in how the funds may be used compared with the other 
grants, activities that states are planning and conducting with the 
grant encompass all five key areas as well as other activities, such as 
conducting activities to reduce alcohol-impaired driving by teens or 
conducting statewide safety belt use surveys.[Footnote 22] While this 
is the only grant program that can be used to fund infrastructure 
improvements, states have allocated a large portion of these grants 
toward programs designed to influence safety. For example, Illinois 
allocated 75 percent ($22.3 million) of the $29.7 million grant for 
behavioral projects and 25 percent ($7.4 million) for infrastructure 
projects. California used all of the $19.4 million it received in 
fiscal year 2006 for behavioral activities. Education and training, 
media and public information, and enforcement activities funded by this 
grant program are generally linked to the national high-visibility 
"Click It or Ticket" campaign. Some states, such as South Carolina, 
have allocated most of the grant to data and technology activities to 
improve traffic safety information systems. These activities may 
include developing systems to enable electronic crash reporting and 
data transmission or identifying top locations for aggressive driving. 
Specifically, South Carolina received $10.6 million and is using the 
majority of this amount--about $8 million--for traffic records 
improvement. Finally, states have also used these grants for other 
activities, such as infrastructure safety measures, including upgrading 
and improving locations where pedestrian and motor vehicle collisions 
occur or videotaping and assessing county roadway systems. 

Because the goal of the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant program is 
to encourage greater use of child safety and booster seats, the 
activities that states are planning and conducting are limited to 
education and training, media and public information, and other 
activities such as car seat purchases. States are planning to use these 
grants to increase training for child safety seat technicians and 
instructors and to support additional safety checkpoints and clinics 
where parents learn how to properly install safety seats. Safety 
advocacy groups have indicated that this funding is important because 
the population of first-time parents is constantly changing. For 
example, New Jersey funded the Safe C.A.R.G.O Program at the Monmouth 
County Sheriff's Office to help educate parents, child-care services, 
and other caregivers on how to properly install and use child safety 
seats.[Footnote 23] States are planning to fund media and public 
information to promote awareness of child passenger safety. Vermont, 
for instance, plans to educate parents through public awareness 
campaigns. The Monmouth County Sheriff's Office also partnered with 
local social service agencies to determine which families are eligible 
for seats and provided vouchers to be redeemed at Safe C.A.R.G.O. 
inspection locations. 

States have used the Impaired Driving grant to focus their efforts on 
education, training, media, and public information. For example, 
Georgia and other states have used the funding to promote Students 
Against Destructive Decisions, which educates youth on alcohol and drug 
education and prevention. States are planning to fund training for 
local law enforcement officers and promote outreach programs to 
prosecutors and judges. Our analysis also indicated that states have 
used the grants to fund awareness programs on the impact of impaired 
driving and target messages to teen drivers, as well as to fund a 
variety of high-visibility enforcement activities, such as the national 
"Over the Limit, Under Arrest" campaign. For example, 15 California 
police departments participated or plan to participate in the 
traditional holiday enforcement campaigns where the departments set up 
DUI checkpoints and conduct billboard campaigns urging residents to 
drive sober during this period.[Footnote 24] The Illinois State Police 
uses grant funds to target establishments that sell alcoholic beverages 
to minors. States have also used the grant to purchase new equipment, 
such as breath alcohol testing vans, diesel-powered light towers, and 
variable message boards for law enforcement to use at checkpoints. In 
addition to these activities, states have used this grant for 
activities to enhance courts' and prosecutors' ability to prosecute 
impaired driving, as well as to encourage legislation imposing stronger 
sanctions and penalties for impaired driving. For example, Arkansas 
plans to use the funding to provide a traffic safety resource 
prosecutor who will serve as a resource to prosecutors in the state on 
impaired driving and other traffic cases. In addition, NHTSA officials 
indicated that states have used this grant to promote legislation to 
impose sanctions and penalties for impaired driving. 

The Motorcyclist Safety grant program's focus on training for 
motorcyclists and increasing other motorists' awareness of 
motorcyclists has provided states with a new source of funding for 
education and training, media and public information, and activities 
such as purchasing motorcycles for training courses. States are using 
the funds to train more rider education coaches and add more classes 
because capacity for these classes has been limited and classes have 
filled up quickly in many states. For example, in Alaska, the Juneau 
American Bikers Aimed Toward Education (ABATE) plans to expand the 
number of Motorcycle Safety Foundation-certified rider education 
coaches in southeast Alaska.[Footnote 25] Nevada plans to allocate 
$20,000 to provide training to maintain current instructor levels and 
add new instructors in fiscal year 2007. Additionally, states have 
funded or plan to fund campaigns to increase other motorists' awareness 
of motorcyclists and promote motorcycle training courses. For example, 
Utah funded motorcycle safety and "Share the Road" public awareness 
campaigns, while Kentucky and several other states plan or have begun 
to publicize and promote training courses. In addition, states 
purchased or plan to purchase additional motorcycles for training 
courses. 

The Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program allows states to 
focus activities specifically on data and technology activities. This 
program assists states in identifying and addressing the quality of 
information concerning crashes, drivers' licenses, injury surveillance, 
roadways, enforcement and adjudication, and vehicles. For example, 
Arkansas plans to use part of its funding to improve the timeliness and 
uniformity of its crash data, while Indiana plans to develop an 
electronic citation system to allow the electronic issuance, 
collection, and court processing of citation data. Similarly, Michigan 
plans to use the grant to create a statewide emergency medical system 
and trauma database, while New Mexico plans to use the funds to enhance 
its DWI records. In addition, NHTSA officials indicated that California 
plans to upgrade its crash system to include GPS coordinates. 

Some States Have Faced Difficulties in Passing Laws to Meet Eligibility 
Requirements and Manage Grants: 

While state safety officials we contacted during site visits agreed 
that the grants are helping states address key safety issues, they also 
noted difficulties in passing laws to meet eligibility requirements for 
some grants, as well as managing grant applications, deadlines, and 
timing. 

Difficulties in Passing Laws: 

While about half of the states have passed primary safety belt laws to 
qualify for the Safety Belt Use grant, other states have not enacted 
primary safety belt laws principally because of state legislatures' or 
governors' opposition to mandating safety belt use laws that could 
infringe on individuals' personal freedom. For example, according to 
Montana traffic safety officials and others involved in traffic safety, 
the state Senate passed a primary safety belt bill that the Governor 
supported, but the bill failed in the state House by a narrow margin. 
In Vermont, a traffic safety official told us that the state House 
passed a primary safety belt bill, but the Governor did not support it, 
and it failed in the state Senate. An analysis of state legislative 
activity indicates states have faced challenges in enacting primary 
safety belt laws. Of the 29 states that introduced primary safety belt 
bills from 2003 through 2007, 8 passed the bills (see table 
3);[Footnote 26] 16 states had primary safety belt laws in effect 
before 2003.[Footnote 27] 

Table 3: States' Efforts to Pass Primary Safety Belt Legislation, 2003- 
2007: 

Introduced primary safety belt legislation 2003-2007: 
States: 29. 

Enacted and put into effect safety belt legislation, Before 2003: 
States: 16. 

Enacted and put into effect safety belt legislation, 2003; 
States: 2. 

Enacted and put into effect safety belt legislation, 2004; 
States: 1. 

Enacted and put into effect safety belt legislation, 2005; 
States: 1. 

Enacted and put into effect safety belt legislation, 2006; 
States: 3. 

Enacted and put into effect safety belt legislation, 2007; 
States: 1[A]. 

Total eligible for Safety Belt Use grant: 
States: 24. 

Total not eligible for Safety Belt Use grant: 
States: 26. 

Source: NCSL and NHTSA. 

[A] Maine passed a primary safety belt law that became effective in 
2007, but did not enforce the grant in time to qualify for the grant in 
2007. 

[End of table] 

Similarly, about one-fourth of the 50 states have passed laws to 
qualify for Child Safety and Booster Seat grants.[Footnote 28] As our 
analysis of state legislative activity indicates, from 2003, when 
states became aware of some of the provisions that would likely be 
included in the reauthorization legislation, through 2007, 24 states 
considered requiring children to use booster seats up to age 8. In 
total, 5 states passed new laws or modified existing laws so that they 
qualified for the grant in fiscal year 2006. An additional 8 states 
passed laws to qualify for the grant in fiscal year 2007 (see table 4). 
Although many states already had booster seat laws in effect, these 
laws vary in terms of the age, height, and weight requirements. For 
example, some states require children to use booster seats up to ages 
5, 6, or 7 but not age 8. Other states use height or weight 
requirements. According to traffic safety officials and safety 
advocates, the variations occurred because, over time, NHTSA has 
changed the criteria concerning age, height, and weight for determining 
who should be in booster seats. According to NHTSA officials, these 
changes were based on evolving research and understanding on how to 
best protect children. However, once a state has a booster seat law in 
effect--even one not meeting the grant's requirement--state safety 
officials, safety advocates, and others familiar with traffic safety 
legislation are often reluctant to attempt to upgrade it because of 
fears that the current law could be revisited and the safety provisions 
could be lost, according to an NCSL official and representatives of 
organizations involved in child passenger safety. 

Table 4: States' Efforts to Pass Child Safety and Booster Seat 
Legislation, 2003-2007: 

Introduced child booster seat legislation, 2003-2007[A]: 
States: 24. 

Year qualifying for grant after enacting legislation, 2006: 
States: 5. 

Year qualifying for grant after enacting legislation, 2007: 
States: 8. 

Total eligible for grant: 
States: 13. 

Total not eligible for grant: 
States: 37. 

Sources: NCSL and NHTSA. 

[A] Bill that meets grant criteria. 

[End of table] 

Although all 50 states met the eligibility requirements for the first 
and second years of the Impaired Driving grant program, NHTSA regional 
and governors' highway safety officials have expressed concerns about 
states' ability to meet the eligibility criteria in the future. 
According to these officials, the criteria will be more difficult to 
meet because states may need to pass laws that impose stronger 
sanctions against those convicted of drunken driving, such as 
installing ignition interlock devices and suspending or revoking 
drivers' licenses. As table 5 illustrates, states have not attempted to 
qualify for the Impaired Driving grant using three of the grant's 
programmatic criteria, which may require legislation; the criteria are 
high-risk driver program, administrative license suspension or 
revocation system, and self-sustaining impaired-driving prevention 
programs. Federal and state officials have expressed concern that, as 
with efforts to pass laws related to the Safety Belt Use and Child 
Safety and Booster Seat grants, some states will find it more difficult 
than others to pass laws imposing stronger sanctions. In addition, 
officials are concerned that states that cannot meet the eligibility 
criteria would have difficulty continuing their efforts to reduce 
alcohol-impaired driving. 

Table 5: States' Efforts to Meet Programmatic Criteria for the Impaired 
Driving Grant: 

Type of criteria: Nonlegislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: High-visibility enforcement; 
States that met criteria: 29. 

Type of criteria: Nonlegislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: Alcohol rehabilitation and DWI court program for 
repeat offenders; 
States that met criteria: 25. 

Type of criteria: Nonlegislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: Underage drinking prevention program; 
States that met criteria: 25. 

Type of criteria: Nonlegislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: BAC testing program; 
States that met criteria: 24. 

Type of criteria: Nonlegislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: Prosecution and adjudication program; 
States that met criteria: 18. 

Type of criteria: Possible legislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: High-risk drivers program; 
States that met criteria: 0. 

Type of criteria: Possible legislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: Administrative license suspension or revocation 
system; 
States that met criteria: 0. 

Type of criteria: Possible legislative action required; 
Programmatic criteria: Self-sustaining impaired-driving prevention 
program; 
States that met criteria: 0. 

Source: NHTSA. 

[End of table] 

Difficulties in Managing Multiple Grant Applications, Timing of Awards, 
and Limited Flexibility: 

The multiple grant applications and deadlines presented challenges for 
the seven states we visited. As illustrated in figure 5, the five 
applications are due within a period of 1-1/2 months between June 15 
and August 1. According to state highway safety officials, each 
application requires extensive amounts of staff time and resources. The 
application process requires states to submit to NHTSA the application, 
a certification of compliance, and additional information, depending on 
the grant. Although the application process is similar for each grant, 
having to complete it several times within a few months presents 
administrative challenges for states. Several states expressed concerns 
about the demands the application process placed on their staff, even 
though states with larger safety programs have more staff and resources 
available to manage grant applications than states with smaller safety 
programs. For example, Illinois officials said they have had difficulty 
meeting NHTSA's administrative requirements to apply for the grants 
because the state Division of Traffic Safety has had staff shortages 
resulting from cutbacks and are considering an electronic grants 
process to enable them to meet the requirements. Similarly, Montana 
officials indicated they have a small staff and are burdened with grant 
paperwork. According to NHTSA and state highway safety officials, 
smaller state highway safety offices--such as that in Vermont-- 
struggled to manage their grants. According to NHTSA, the application 
requirements reflect SAFETEA-LU's requirements to award the grants in 
the same year in which the state's legislative status and fatality-rate 
performance are measured. 

Figure 5: Application Deadlines for SAFETEA-LU Incentive Grants: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the timeline for application 
deadlines for SAFETEA-LU Incentive Grants. The following information is 
depicted: 

Application deadline for Traffic Safety Data grant: 
June 15, all years. 

Application deadline for Child Safety and Booster Seat Use grant: 
July 1, all years. 

Application deadline for Safety Belt Use grant, as a new law state: 
July 1, all years. 

Application deadline for Motorcycle Safety grant: 
August 1, all years. 

Application deadline for Impaired Driving grant: 
August 1, all years. 

Source: NHTSA regulations and implementing guidelines. 

[End of figure] 

State officials also expressed concern over the delay in receiving 
grant awards and the associated impact on states' ability to expend the 
funds to address traffic safety concerns. States received most of the 
grants in September--at the end of the federal fiscal year--in both 
fiscal years 2006 and 2007, from 1 to 3 months after the states 
submitted the grant applications. According to data provided by NHTSA, 
states received $250 million late in fiscal year 2006, and expended 
14.1 percent of the combined funds in fiscal year 2006.[Footnote 29] 
Most of the fiscal year 2006 funds carried forward to fiscal year 2007. 
In fiscal year 2007, states received $274 million; the states carried 
forward $261 million and expended $157 million, or 29.4 percent of the 
combined funds[Footnote 30] (see table 6). 

Table 6: Awards and Expenditures of Incentive Grants, Dollars in 
millions: 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2006; 
Grant funds: Carry forward; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: $0.0; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: $0.0; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: $53.8; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: $0.0; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: $0.0; 
Total: $53.8. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2006; 
Grant funds: Awarded; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: $88.8; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: $2.6; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: $118.3; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: $5.9; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: $34.2; 
Total: $249.8. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2006; 
Grant funds: Expenditure; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: $0.6; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: $0.0; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: $42.1; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: $0.0; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: $0.1; 
Total: $42.9. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2006; 
Grant funds: Liquidated; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: 0.7%; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: 0%; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: 24.5%; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: 0%; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: 0.3%; 
Total: 14.1%. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2007; 
Grant funds: Carry forward; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: $88.1; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: $2.6; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: $130.0; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: $5.9; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: $34.0; 
Total: $260.7. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2007; 
Grant funds: Awarded; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: $102.9; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: $6.0; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: $124.5; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: $6.0; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: $34.5; 
Total: $273.9. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2007; 
Grant funds: Expenditure; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: $56.5; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: $0.9; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: $84.7; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: $2.8; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: $12.3; 
Total: $157.2. 

Fiscal year grants awarded: 2007; 
Grant funds: Liquidated; 
Grant: Safety Belt Use: 29.6%; 
Grant: Child Safety and Booster Seat: 10.1%; 
Grant: Impaired Driving: 33.3%; 
Grant: Motorcyclist Safety: 23.4%; 
Grant: Traffic Safety Information Systems: 18.0%; 
Total: 29.4%. 

Source: NHTSA, as of January 2008. 

[End of table] 

One NHTSA official attributed the low rate of expenditures for the 
fiscal year 2006 grants to the fact that SAFETEA-LU was not passed 
until August 2005, giving state officials little time to plan how to 
spend the funds they received beginning in fiscal year 2006. State 
officials indicated that, once they received the awards, they needed 
time to assess applications from subgrantees and award the grants. 
Additionally, the amount of funding a state receives in a given year 
for a grant depends in part on the number of other states that also 
receive the grant, which can make it difficult to predict the amount a 
state is going to receive or can result in a state receiving more than 
state officials had anticipated in a given year. For example, according 
to NHTSA officials, Michigan received more Safety Belt Use grant 
funding in fiscal year 2006 than anticipated. Similarly, the states 
that received the Child Safety and Booster Seat grant in fiscal year 
2006 received much more than they expected because so few received the 
grant. As a result, they did not have plans for using the increased 
level of funding. NHTSA officials indicated they were aware that the 
states received the funds late in the fiscal year and that this 
affected states' ability to use the funds, but noted that states will 
be able to carry the funds over to the next fiscal year. One NHTSA 
regional official indicated that, while state officials do not know the 
exact amount of the grants prior to receiving the money, after the 
first year of the grants, state officials should have a general idea of 
how much they will receive and therefore can begin planning how to use 
the funds. 

State officials also noted they would have preferred having more 
flexibility in how they use the grants. For example, the Motorcyclist 
Safety grant program allows the federal funding to be used only for 
training and to increase other motorists' awareness of motorcyclists. 
Officials in Montana noted they would like to use the funds to expand 
training sites to provide more training opportunities. However, the 
grant does not allow the funds to be used for this purpose. 
Additionally, officials in New Jersey noted that the Child Safety and 
Booster Seat grant they received in fiscal year 2006 was much larger 
than they expected. They would have preferred to have used the 
additional funding for other areas, such as the state's traffic safety 
information systems. 

NHTSA officials agree with state officials' concerns but noted they 
cannot take action to address these issues because the challenges stem 
from the grant requirements built into the law itself. The officials 
indicated they are currently in the preliminary stages of developing a 
proposal to reauthorize funding for these programs but have not 
developed it sufficiently to provide specific information on what they 
are considering. 

NHTSA Plans to Develop More Comprehensive Performance Measures; 
Performance Accountability Mechanisms and Issues States Face in Using 
Grants Raise Implications for Reauthorization: 

NHTSA plans to develop more comprehensive performance measures to 
evaluate the results of these grant programs, but state performance is 
not tied to the receipt of the grants; the absence of such performance 
accountability mechanisms, as well as issues described above that 
states face in using grants, raise implications for reauthorization. 

The changes made by SAFETEA-LU to the safety incentive grant programs 
have not been in place long enough to assess their impact on 
fatalities, injuries, and crashes, although the grants have resulted in 
states enacting laws and implementing activities to meet grant 
criteria. NHTSA officials indicated they plan to rely on performance 
measures to determine the results of the grant programs. However, these 
performance measures are not comprehensive. Additionally, three of the 
five grants do not include performance accountability mechanisms that 
would tie states' eligibility for the grants or the amount states 
receive to performance. These issues as well as those that states have 
faced in applying for and using the grants raise implications for 
Congress to consider in reauthorizing the surface transportation 
program. 

NHTSA Plans to Develop More Comprehensive Performance Measures to 
Evaluate Results of Grant Programs, but State Performance Is Not Tied 
to Receipt of Grants: 

Although changes made by SAFETEA-LU to the safety incentive grant 
programs have not been in place long enough to allow for an evaluation 
of results, such as improvements in fatality rates, NHTSA officials 
indicated they plan to rely on performance measures to help determine 
the results of the programs and other safety initiatives (see figure 
6). NHTSA has awarded grants for 2 fiscal years, and states are 
currently implementing activities using the grant funds. According to a 
NHTSA official, the grant awards made in late fiscal year 2006 could 
not have been expected to impact performance measures such as fatality 
rates until calendar year 2007 at the earliest. Moreover, because of 
the time required to start up projects that states fund with the 
grants, the impact of the activities might not be realized until 2008. 
Data on fatality rates for 2007 will be available in the fall of 2008. 
The measures currently used by NHTSA include DOT-wide measures that 
reflect the overall goal of reducing traffic fatalities, such as the 
passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate and motorcycle fatality rate. 
In addition to DOT's performance measures, NHTSA also has intermediate 
outcome measures to track behaviors that influence traffic safety, such 
as safety belt use, improperly licensed motorcycle riders in fatal 
crashes, and safety restraint use for children under age 8. 

Figure 8: DOT Performance Measures and NHTSA Intermediate Outcome 
Measures: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a table illustrating the DOT Performance Measures and 
NHTSA Intermediate Outcome Measures. The following information is 
depicted: 

DOT performance measures: Motorcycle rider fatality rate
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Reduce to 76 fatalities per 
100 million motorcycle registrations. 

DOT performance measures: Passenger vehicle occupant fatality rate; 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Reduce to 1.06 fatalities per 
100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). 

DOT performance measures: Nonoccupant fatality rate; 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Reduce to 0.19 fatalities per 
100 million VMT. 

DOT performance measures: Large truck and bus; 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Reduce to 0.171 fatalities 
per 100 million VMT. 

NHTSA intermediate outcome measures: Alcohol fatality rate (.08+ BAC); 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Reduce to 0.48 fatalities per 
100 million VMT. 

NHTSA intermediate outcome measures: Seat belt use; 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Increase to 84% of front seat 
occupants using shoulder harnesses. 

NHTSA intermediate outcome measures: Improperly licensed motorcyclists 
in fatal crashes; 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Reduce to 22.5% fatally 
injured motorcycle operators without valid motorcycle licenses. 

NHTSA intermediate outcome measures: Children 0-7 restraint use; 
2008 targets (measurement criteria vary): Increase to 85% of children 0-
7 using child restraint devices. 

Source: NHTSA. 

[End of figure] 

However, the performance measures are not comprehensive for the traffic 
safety areas covered by the grant programs. NHTSA's intermediate 
outcome measures do not include measures to track behaviors that 
influence alcohol-related fatalities. Such measures could include the 
numbers of impaired-driving citations issued, arrests, and 
convictions.[Footnote 31] Currently, states vary in the extent to which 
the data to track such measures are collected. NHTSA recognizes the 
need to improve these measures and, in partnership with GHSA, has hired 
a contractor to develop a common set of performance measures that 
federal, state, and local governments could use. The objective is to 
establish intermediate outcome measures for a broad range of traffic 
safety areas, including safety belts and child passenger safety, 
impaired driving, and motorcycles, that can reliably track progress 
toward reducing the safety problems in each area. NHTSA plans to use 
these measures to track progress at the national level and encourage 
states to consider these measures in the highway safety planning 
process. The contractor's analysis of performance measures is expected 
to be completed in August 2008. 

While more comprehensive performance measures could improve NHTSA's 
ability to measure national and individual state progress toward 
traffic safety goals, the receipt of grant funds by states are 
generally not directly linked to the results--or performance--of 
states' activities to achieve those goals. For example, one way for 
states to qualify for Safety Belt Use grants, and the only way for 
noncomplying states to qualify for the Child Safety and Booster Seat 
grants, has been to pass laws.[Footnote 32] The Motorcyclist Safety 
grants require states to conduct certain activities to initially 
receive the grants. A majority of the states also qualify for the 
Impaired Driving grant by conducting activities. To receive grants in 
the future, states must continue these activities and meet additional 
criteria, which could include conducting additional activities or, in 
the case of the Impaired Driving grant, pass additional legislation. 
States do not need to achieve a particular performance level--or 
reduction in fatality rate--in order to continue receiving the grants. 
In contrast, the fifth grant program--Traffic Safety Information 
Systems--includes a performance accountability mechanism requiring that 
states demonstrate measurable improvement in their systems, as well as 
continue to meet other eligibility criteria, in order to receive the 
grant in subsequent years. Additionally, the Impaired Driving grant 
includes a performance accountability mechanism because states that 
achieve an alcohol-related fatality rate of 0.5 or less per 100 million 
VMT receive a grant based on the amount of the State and Community 
Highway Safety grant. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, 19 states 
qualified for grants in this manner. However, these states are not 
eligible to receive funds based on the programmatic criteria specified 
for this grant and receive these grants after the states with the 
highest alcohol-related fatality rates receive their Impaired Driving 
grants. 

We have previously reported that such performance accountability 
mechanisms could improve the design and implementation of federal 
grants.[Footnote 33] Regarding transportation-related grants, we have 
raised concerns about insufficient links between state performance and 
receipt of grants. In addition, transportation and other experts on a 
panel convened by GAO's Comptroller General in May 2007 stated that the 
nation's overall transportation goals--including safety goals--need to 
be linked to performance measures that measure what the respective 
programs and polices are designed to accomplish.[Footnote 34] 

Implications for Reauthorization: 

Congress changed the traffic safety incentive grant programs in SAFETEA-
LU to encourage states to undertake activities tied to safety areas 
that Congress had identified as being high priority. These programs set 
forth specific criteria for states to qualify for grants, as well as 
specific requirements for how states can use the funding provided. 
However, this structure does not always allow states flexibility to 
direct funding toward safety priorities as identified in highway safety 
plans. Furthermore, while the current grant structure ensures that 
states are directing their efforts toward congressionally established 
priorities, it does not necessarily ensure that the grants are in 
proportion to the extent of the traffic safety problems. As noted 
previously, the current structure also presents some eligibility and 
management issues for states and does not include performance 
accountability mechanisms for all grants. 

NHTSA has not developed its proposal for the next highway safety 
authorization bill when the current authorization, expires in 2009, but 
NHTSA officials noted that DOT's 2003 reauthorization proposal included 
features that would address these issues. For example, NHTSA's proposal 
included performance-based grants within the State and Community 
Highway Safety grant program that could address the issues that states 
have faced in applying for and using the current safety incentive 
grants. The basis for awarding the grants under this proposal would 
have been data driven; as states improved the performance of their 
highway safety programs by decreasing fatalities, their grant amounts 
would have increased. States would not have faced the issues concerning 
multiple applications because they would not have had to apply for the 
grants. Additionally, according to the proposal, NHTSA would have 
awarded the grants by December 31 of each year--much earlier than 
states currently receive them. Finally, states would have had 
flexibility in using the funds because the grants would have been part 
of the State and Community Highway Safety grant program; this program 
permits flexibility in how grant funds are used. 

In December 2007, the National Surface Transportation Policy and 
Revenue Study Commission proposed a National Safe Mobility Program with 
a performance-based structure similar to NHTSA's proposal.[Footnote 35] 
In the proposed program, DOT would define safety performance metrics to 
be used by all federal, state, and local agencies, as well as work with 
states to define specific goals for individual states. States would 
then develop strategies for reaching these goals, including safety 
projects within the highway safety plan. The commission recommended 
that a national plan for safety be developed that leads to 
transportation investments undertaken purely for safety purposes and 
that the federal share of the funding for qualifying safety projects be 
90 percent of the project cost. According to the report, qualifying 
safety projects could include projects designed to change safety 
behaviors, such as safety belt use and impaired driving, as well as 
projects to improve the safety of surface transportation 
infrastructure. 

DOT's 2003 reauthorization proposal also included performance 
accountability mechanisms for traffic safety incentive grants that 
would link performance or progress toward achieving safety goals with 
grant awards. Specifically, NHTSA proposed that the amount of an 
individual state's grant award depend on the state's performance 
related to various crash fatality rates, safety belt use, and safety 
belt laws. Since NHTSA's current oversight approach is based on state 
performance in achieving safety goals states establish in their highway 
safety plans, establishing such performance accountability mechanisms 
for traffic safety incentive grants would be more consistent with 
NHTSA's oversight approach and is an option that could be considered 
when Congress reauthorizes the surface transportation program. (See 
app. VII for a more complete description of NHTSA's 2003 proposal.) 

As Congress considers the reauthorization of funding for these 
programs, it will face the decision of retaining the current grant 
structure or moving toward a more performance-based, data-driven grant 
structure. While a performance-based, data-driven grant structure is 
more consistent with NHTSA's current oversight approach, such a 
structure would depend on the quality of state data systems because 
states would need to be able to report on fatalities, crashes, and 
other traffic safety characteristics in a timely and accurate manner. 
In 2004, we reported that states vary considerably in the extent to 
which their traffic safety data systems meet recommended criteria used 
by NHTSA to assess the quality of crash information.[Footnote 36] We 
reviewed systems in nine states and found, for example, that some 
states entered crash information into their systems in a matter of 
weeks, while others took a year or more. While some systems were better 
than others, all had opportunities for improvement. Furthermore, a 
performance-based grant structure would also depend on a robust 
oversight approach for NHTSA to ensure that states are establishing 
appropriate traffic safety goals and making sufficient progress toward 
those goals. As previously noted, we are currently examining NHTSA's 
oversight approach and expect to issue a report on it in July 2008. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment. 
DOT officials, including the Deputy Administrator of NHTSA, generally 
agreed with the findings of the report and offered technical 
corrections that we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees and the Secretary of Transportation. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no cost on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-6570 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix VIII. 

Signed by: 

Katherine A. Siggerud: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

We were asked to evaluate five safety incentive grant programs included 
in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act 
(SAFETEA-LU), specifically the Safety Belt Use, Child Safety and Child 
Booster Seat Use, Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures, 
Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Safety Data Systems Improvement 
grant programs. This report addresses (1) the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) status in awarding and overseeing 
states' use of these grant programs, (2) activities states have 
conducted using the grants and issues they have faced in applying for 
and implementing them, and (3) how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results 
of the grant programs and implications for reauthorizing the programs. 

To determine the progress NHTSA has made in awarding and overseeing the 
use of the grants, we reviewed past GAO reports on NHTSA's oversight 
and analyzed applicable laws, regulations, and other guidance for 
awarding and overseeing grants.[Footnote 37] We interviewed NHTSA 
officials to determine guidance it provided to states on grant 
applications, guidelines in overseeing the grants, and grant award 
data. We also interviewed Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration officials within the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) and representatives from 
professional groups, including the Governors Highway Safety 
Association, National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), National 
Safety Council, American Association of State Highway Transportation 
Officials, and Advocates for Auto and Highway Safety on the grants 
process and measures NHTSA has taken to improve the process. In 
addition, we interviewed national safety and law enforcement 
associations, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the 
American Automobile Association (AAA), Safe Kids, International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, and National Sheriffs' Association. We 
also requested and received data regarding grant awards from 
NHTSA.[Footnote 38] To obtain state information on NHTSA's progress in 
awarding and overseeing the five grants, we conducted case studies in 
seven states--California, Illinois, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, 
South Carolina, and Vermont--to discuss NHTSA's progress in awarding 
and overseeing the grants with state officials. We selected the states 
based on a combination of characteristics, including fatality rates, 
funding, and geographic distribution. For fatality rates and funding, 
we selected states to include those with high-and low-fatality rates 
and high and low use of highway safety grants.[Footnote 39] We 
considered highway safety grants during our state selection process to 
mirror the multitude of safety factors that may be reflected in 
fatality rates. We also ensured our selection covered at least three 
states for each incentive grant to provide sufficient coverage of each 
grant. However, the results of our case study analyses are not 
generalizable to all 50 states because the states selected are not 
necessarily representative of the grants each state is eligible to 
receive and activities other states would implement. 

To identify activities states are funding with the grants and issues 
they have faced in applying for and implementing the grants, we 
interviewed officials and analyzed data for the seven states we 
visited. In each state we visited, we interviewed governors' highway 
safety representatives or their designees and reviewed documentation 
describing those states' traffic safety programs and the activities 
states have funded with the grants. In addition, we reviewed the 2007 
state highway safety plans and 2006 annual reports for all 50 states to 
identify activities states are funding with the grants and categorized 
them into five key areas--education and training, media and public 
information, enforcement, data and technology, and infrastructure 
improvements. For each state we visited, we also interviewed the 
applicable NHTSA regional and FHWA division officials. In general, we 
also interviewed representatives of state and local chapters of 
national safety associations, such as MADD, AAA, and Safe Kids. 
Additionally, we interviewed representatives from law enforcement, such 
as state associations of chiefs of police and sheriffs' associations 
about the activities states have funded and challenges they faced. We 
also examined NCSL's legislative tracking database of primary safety 
belt and booster seat legislative activity from 2001 to 2007 to assess 
states' progress in meeting legislative requirements for the Safety 
Belt Use and Child Safety and Booster Seat grant programs. In addition, 
we requested and received data regarding states' expenditures of the 
grant funds.[Footnote 40] 

To determine how NHTSA plans to evaluate the results of the grant 
programs and the implications for reauthorizing them, we interviewed 
NHTSA officials and reviewed a variety of documents related to 
performance measures, and reauthorization. Specifically, we reviewed 
DOT's and NHTSA's performance measures, as well as GAO reports on 
performance measures and federal grant management. We also reviewed and 
considered the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study 
Commission report and NHTSA's 2002 reauthorization proposal related to 
safety incentive grant programs. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: States Receiving Safety Belt Use Grants: 

State: Alabama; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003[A]; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,911,407; 
FY 2007 grant award: $3,427,509. 

State: Alaska; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 05/01/06[B]; 
FY 2006 grant award: $3,725,188; 
FY 2007 grant award: 0. 

State: California; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $10,796,370; 
FY 2007 grant award: $19,359,902. 

State: Connecticut; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,112,428; 
FY 2007 grant award: $1,994,790. 

State: Delaware; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 06/30/03; 
FY 2006 grant award: $3,725,188; 
FY 2007 grant award: 0. 

State: Hawaii; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $561,545; 
FY 2007 grant award: $1,006,955. 

State: Illinois; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 07/03/03; 
FY 2006 grant award: $29,727,619; 
FY 2007 grant award: 0. 

State: Indiana; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 07/01/07[C]; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $15,738,565. 

State: Iowa; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,608,264; 
FY 2007 grant award: $2,883,916. 

State: Kentucky; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 07/20/06; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $11,210,594. 

State: Louisiana; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,687,944; 
FY 2007 grant award: $3,026,798. 

State: Maryland; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,717,137; 
FY 2007 grant award: $3,079,145. 

State: Michigan; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $ 3,661,660; 
FY 2007 grant award: $6,566,038. 

State: Mississippi; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 05/27/06; 
FY 2006 grant award: $8,713,448; 
FY 2007 grant award: 0. 

State: New Jersey; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $2,642,724; 
FY 2007 grant award: $4,738,896. 

State: New Mexico; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $927,071; 
FY 2007 grant award: $1,662,411. 

State: New York; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $6,174,421; 
FY 2007 grant award: $11,071,887. 

State: North Carolina; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $2,982,908; 
FY 2007 grant award: $5,348,910. 

State: Oklahoma; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,752,468; 
FY 2007 grant award: $3,142,500. 

State: Oregon; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $1,430,417; 
FY 2007 grant award: $2,565,005. 

State: South Carolina; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 12/09/05; 
FY 2006 grant award: $10,576,645; 
FY 2007 grant award: 0. 

State: Tennessee; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: 07/01/04; 
FY 2006 grant award: $14,726,112; 
FY 2007 grant award: 0. 

State: Texas; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $7,991,667; 
FY 2007 grant award: $14,330,547. 

State: Washington; 
Primary safety belt law effective date: Prior to 2003; 
FY 2006 grant award: $2,231,437; 
FY 2007 grant award: $4,001,383. 

State: Total[D]; 
FY 2006 grant award: $123,255,000; 
FY 2007 grant award: $120,303,863. 

Sources: NHTSA, Indiana statute, and Insurance Institute of Highway 
Safety (IIHS). 

[A] Per NHTSA implementing guidelines for all states with primary 
safety belt laws prior to 2003. 

[B] Per IIHS summary of state safety belt laws for all states passing 
primary state laws in 2003 and afterward, except for Indiana. 

[C] Per Indiana statute. 

[D] Total includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the 
territories of American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
Marianas Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: States Receiving Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use 
Grants: 

State: Delaware; 
FY 2006 grant award: $0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $143,709. 

State: Kansas; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $431,479. 

State: Maine; 
FY 2006 grant award: $196,063; 
FY 2007 grant award: $143,709. 

State: Missouri; 
FY 2006 grant award: $852,790; 
FY 2007 grant award: $625,076. 

State: New Jersey; 
FY 2006 grant award: $922,703; 
FY 2007 grant award: $676,320. 

State: North Carolina; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $763,380. 

State: Oregon; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $366,069. 

State: Tennessee; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $568,101. 

State: Vermont; 
FY 2006 grant award: $196,063; 
FY 2007 grant award: $143,709. 

State: Virginia; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $639,405. 

State: Washington; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $571,065. 

State: West Virginia; 
FY 2006 grant award: $268,021; 
FY 2007 grant award: $196,453. 

State: Wisconsin; 
FY 2006 grant award: 0; 
FY 2007 grant award: $587,816. 

State: Total[A]; 
FY 2006 grant award: $2,631,703; 
FY 2007 grant award: $6,000,000. 

Source: NHTSA. 

[A] Total includes the District of Columbia. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: States Awarded Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures 
Grants: 

State: Alabama; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,783,252; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,877,996. 

State: Alaska; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: Arizona; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $4,400,140; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $4,813,097. 

State: Arkansas; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $3,390,955; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
Y 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,399,957. 

State: California; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $10,061,948; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $10,585,374. 

State: Colorado; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,691,543; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,781,364. 

State: Connecticut; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,037,369; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,091,503. 

State: Delaware; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: Florida; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $4,996,558; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $5,262,137. 

State: Georgia; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,910,999; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $3,065,461. 

State: Hawaii; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: Idaho; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: 640,837; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: 673,465. 

State: Illinois; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: 4,171,559; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: 4,388,048. 

State: Indiana; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: 2,213,451; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: 2,331,134. 

State: Iowa; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,495,480; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,572,020. 

State: Kansas; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,566,081; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,647,835. 

State: Kentucky; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,561,227; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,645,481. 

State: Louisiana; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $3,998,741; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $4,346,950. 

State: Maine; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: Maryland; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,600,270; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,684,342. 

State: Massachusetts; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,911,049; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,010,994. 

State: Michigan; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $3,410,506; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $3,580,033. 

State: Minnesota; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,138,732; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,248,378. 

State: Mississippi; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,890,134; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $3,385,160. 

State: Missouri; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,287,629; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,404,916. 

State: Montana; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,725,735; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,871,410. 

State: Nebraska; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,042,962; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,095,807. 

State: Nevada; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,896,194; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,072,154. 

State: New Hampshire; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: New Jersey; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,473,961; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,605,406. 

State: New Mexico; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,257,636; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,448,131. 

State: New York; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $5,752,196; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $6,051,622. 

State: North Carolina; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,784,438; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,930,961. 

State: North Dakota; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $718,414; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,984,509. 

State: Ohio; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: 3,800,937; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: 3,997,545. 

State: Oklahoma; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: 1,627,544; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: 1,711,585. 

State: Oregon; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: 1,323,935; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: 1,382,967. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $4,021,148; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $4,229,093. 

State: Rhode Island; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: South Carolina; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $3,775,228; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $4,103,281. 

State: South Dakota; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Check]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $1,852,794; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $1,250,623. 

State: Tennessee; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,071,876; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,187,937. 

State: Texas; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $7,448,592; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $7,837,977. 

State: Utah; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $862,348; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $912,044. 

State: Vermont; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: Virginia; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,330,393; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Check]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,453,524. 

State: Washington; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Check];
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Empty]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,077,186; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,198,328. 

State: West Virginia; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $713,655; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $750,251. 

State: Wisconsin; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $2,141,502; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $2,253,864. 

State: Wyoming; 
FY 2006 low-fatality rate grant[A]: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 high-fatality rate grant: [Empty]; 
FY 2006 programmatic grant: [Check]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $530,578; 
FY 2007 low-fatality rate grant[B]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 high-fatality grant[C]: [Empty]; 
FY 2007 programmatic grant[D]: [Check]; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $558,348. 

State: Total[E]; 
Total FY 2006 grants: $118,350,000; 
Total FY 2007 grants: $124,500,000. 

Source: NHTSA. 

[A] A state can qualify in one of three ways for an Impaired Driving 
grant: as a "low-fatality" rate state, a programmatic state, or as a 
"high-fatality" rate state (being among the 10 states with the highest 
fatality rates). It is possible for a high-fatality state to be awarded 
both a programmatic grant and a high-fatality rate grant in the same 
year. 

[B] A low-fatality rate state has an alcohol-related fatality rate of 
0.5 or less per 100 million vehicle miles traveled annually. 

[C] High-fatality rate states are the 10 states with the highest 
alcohol-impaired fatality rates per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 
annually. 

[D] To qualify as a programmatic state, a state must adopt and 
demonstrate compliance with three of the eight Impaired Driving grant 
criteria in the first year it applies, four in the second year, and 
five in the third year. 

[E] FY 2007 total includes Puerto Rico, and FY 2006 total includes the 
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: States Awarded Motorcyclist Safety Grants: 

State: Alaska; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Arizona; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $104,577; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $102,607. 

State: Arkansas; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: California; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $412,672; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $365,542. 

State: Colorado; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $103,649; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $101,815. 

State: Connecticut; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Delaware; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Florida; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $225,414; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $205,733. 

State: Georgia; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $148,666; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $140,234. 

State: Hawaii; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Idaho; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Illinois; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $195,477; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $180,184. 

State: Indiana; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $122,952; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $118,289. 

State: Iowa; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Kansas; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Kentucky; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Louisiana; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Maine; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Maryland; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,413; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Massachusetts; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $111,845; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $108,810. 

State: Michigan; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $167,290; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $156,129. 

State: Minnesota; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $120,614; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $116,293. 

State: Missouri; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $125,360; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $120,344. 

State: Montana; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Nebraska; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Nevada; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: New Hampshire; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: New Jersey; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $132,247; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $126,221. 

State: New Mexico; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: New York; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $253,711; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $229,882. 

State: North Carolina; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $143,946; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $136,206. 

State: North Dakota; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Ohio; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $180,080; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $167,043. 

State: Oklahoma; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $101,629; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,090. 

State: Oregon; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $189,804; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $175,342. 

State: Rhode Island; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: South Dakota; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Tennessee; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $117,703; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $113,809. 

State: Texas; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $316,210; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $283,221. 

State: Utah; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Vermont; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Virginia; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $127,286; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $121,987. 

State: Washington; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $118,102; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $114,149. 

State: West Virginia; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Wisconsin; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $120,353; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $116,070. 

State: Wyoming; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $100,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $100,000. 

State: Total[A]; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $5,940,000; 
FY 2007 grants (47 states): $6,000,000. 

[End of table] 

Source: NHTSA. 

[A] Totals include Puerto Rico. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: States Awarded Traffic Safety Information Systems Grants: 

State: Alabama; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $654,199; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Alaska; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $300,000. 

State: Arizona; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $629,140; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Arkansas; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $490,007; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: California; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $3,695,172; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $2,552,026. 

State: Colorado; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $619,908; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Connecticut; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $380,740; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Delaware; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $300,000. 

State: Florida; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $1,831,666; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $1,265,019. 

State: Georgia; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $1,067,897; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $737,530. 

State: Hawaii; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Idaho; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Illinois; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $1,059,263. 

State: Indiana; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $812,005; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $560,801. 

State: Iowa; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $550,445; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Kansas; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $577,052; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Kentucky; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $578,392; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Louisiana; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $577,717; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Maine; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Maryland; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $587,708; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Massachusetts; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $701,471; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Michigan; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $1,253,242; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $865,536. 

State: Minnesota; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $788,733; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $544,729. 

State: Mississippi; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $449,556; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Missouri; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $835,966; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $577,350. 

State: Montana; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Nebraska; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $383,709; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Nevada; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: New Hampshire; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $300,000. 

State: New Jersey; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $904,500; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $624,682. 

State: New Mexico; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $317,300; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: New York; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $2,113,261; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $1,459,498. 

State: North Carolina; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $1,020,932; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $705,094. 

State: North Dakota; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Ohio; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $1,380,514; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $953,435. 

State: Oklahoma; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $599,801; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Oregon; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $489,575; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Pennsylvania; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $1,477,289; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $1,020,272. 

State: Rhode Island; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: South Dakota; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Tennessee; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $759,769; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $524,726. 

State: Texas; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): 0; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $1,889,056. 

State: Utah; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $316,314; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Vermont; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Virginia; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $855,130; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $590,585. 

State: Washington; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $763,733; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $527,463. 

State: West Virginia; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Wisconsin; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $786,135; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $542,935. 

State: Wyoming; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $300,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $500,000. 

State: Total[A]; 
FY 2006 grants (44 states): $34,155,000; 
FY 2007 grants (49 states): $34,500,000. 

Source: NHTSA. 

[A] FY 2006 total includes Puerto Rico and the territories of American 
Samoa, Guam, Virgin Islands, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. FY 2007 
total includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the 
territories of American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas 
Islands, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: DOT's 2003 Reauthorization Proposal: 

In 2003, DOT submitted to Congress its reauthorization proposal for the 
surface transportation program, which included NHTSA's grant programs. 
The proposal, as it related to traffic safety, included grant programs 
that had both similarities to and differences from the structural 
changes that Congress included in SAFETEA-LU. 

Several of the programs included in that proposal are relevant to the 
five safety incentive grant programs included in our review.[Footnote 
41] Specifically, the relevant programs included in the proposal are as 
follows: 

* A program to award performance grants based on states' performance in 
three categories: motor vehicle crash fatalities; alcohol-related crash 
fatalities; and motorcycle, bicycle, and pedestrian crash fatalities. 
The proposal would have required NHTSA to determine measures using 
fatality data and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and establish goals 
based on those measures. States would have received awards by December 
31 of each year in amounts based on the extent to which they achieved 
the goals or made progress toward them, creating a performance 
accountability mechanism that tied the grant amount to states' 
performance. The proposal included these grants within the State and 
Community Highway Safety grant program. This program was not adopted. 

* A program to award safety belt performance grants designed to 
encourage states to adopt and enforce primary safety belt laws and 
increase the rate of safety belt use. Each state that had already 
enacted and was enforcing a primary enforcement safety belt law would 
have received a one-time grant. Additionally, states passing primary 
enforcement safety belt laws after the reauthorization bill became law, 
or demonstrating a safety belt use rate of 90 percent or more, would 
have subsequently been eligible for a one-time grant. This proposal was 
similar to the safety belt use grant program requirement, as adopted by 
SAFETEA-LU, with the difference being that, as adopted, the law 
provides different grant amounts for states depending on when their 
primary safety belt laws became effective. In addition, under DOT's 
proposal, each state would have received an annual award based on the 
state's prior year's safety belt use rate, regardless of whether the 
states passed a primary safety belt law. This feature would have 
created a performance accountability mechanism by tying a portion of 
the grant amount to states' performance. States would have received 
these grants by December 31 of each year. These grant proposals were 
also within the State and Community Highway Safety grant program. The 
proposal for annual grants based on safety belt use rates was not 
adopted. 

* An amended Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program that was 
similar to the Traffic Safety Information Systems grant program adopted 
by SAFETEA-LU. 

* A discretionary impaired driving program designed to reduce impaired 
driving in states with a high number of alcohol-related fatalities and 
a high rate of alcohol-related fatalities relative to VMT and 
population. This program would have required NHTSA to develop, 
demonstrate, and evaluate comprehensive state programs to reduce 
impaired driving in states with high alcohol-related fatality rates. 
NHTSA would have chosen participating states based on an application 
specifically developed for this grant. This proposal was not adopted. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Katherine A. Siggerud, (202) 512-6570 or siggerudk@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this 
report were Sara Vermillion (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Curda, 
Colin Fallon, Lynn Filla-Clark, Chir Jen Huang, Bert Japikse, Tom 
James, Terry Richardson, Beverly Ross, and Don Watson. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The fatality percentages are not mutually exclusive. For example, a 
traffic fatality may be unbelted and alcohol related. 

[2] In addition to NHTSA, FHWA and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (FMCSA) also provide funds to improve highway safety and 
reduce traffic fatalities. FHWA provides funds for infrastructure and 
operations-related enhancements, while FMCSA provides funds for truck- 
and bus-related safety improvements. 

[3] Under TEA-21, Congress authorized approximately $2.3 billion for 6 
years, from fiscal years 1998 to 2003. After TEA-21 expired in 2003, 
Congress authorized extensions until passing SAFETEA-LU in 2005. We are 
not including funding authorized by these extensions. 

[4] These two grants were not included in the scope of this review. 

[5] The remaining five criteria are to (1) pass a safety belt use law 
applying to passengers in any seat in the vehicle, (2) establish 
minimum fines or penalty points for safety belt and child safety seat 
violations, (3) establish a statewide special traffic enforcement 
program for occupant protection, (4) establish a statewide child 
passenger protection program that includes educational programs on 
proper safety seat use, and (5) pass a child passenger protection law 
that requires minors to be properly secured. 

[6] Most states without primary safety belt laws have secondary laws. 
With a secondary law, law enforcement officers may issue a ticket for 
not wearing a safety belt only if they have stopped and in some cases 
cited the driver for another offense. According to NHTSA officials, New 
Hampshire is the only state without either a primary or a secondary 
safety belt law for persons 18 years of age or over. 

[7] NHTSA commonly refers to these grant programs as Section 402 
(Safety Belt Use), Section 2011 (Child Safety and Child Booster Seat 
Use), Section 410 (Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures), Section 
2010 (Motorcyclist Safety), and Section 408 (State Traffic Safety 
Information Systems Improvement). 

[8] Booster seats are intended to be used by children weighing more 
than 40 pounds who have outgrown a child safety seat. It serves as a 
transition to wearing a safety belt. 

[9] A state can qualify in one of three ways for an Impaired Driving 
grant: as a "low fatality" rate state, a programmatic state, or a "high 
fatality" rate state (being among the 10 states with the highest 
fatality rates). It is possible for a high-fatality state to be awarded 
both a programmatic grant and a high-fatality-rate grant in the same 
year. 

[10] In addition to the Impaired Driving grant, TEA-21 authorized 
spending for programs that imposed penalties by withholding certain 
highway construction funds from states that did not pass legislation 
designed to reduce impaired driving. One of these was a $500 million 
program to prevent the operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated 
persons and to motivate states to enact and enforce a law establishing 
a BAC of 0.08 as the legal limit for determining whether a driver is 
intoxicated. Congress also adopted provisions to penalize states for 
not enacting laws to prohibit the possession of open alcoholic 
beverages and the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the passenger 
area of any motor vehicle. According to GHSA, 42 states currently have 
laws prohibiting open alcoholic beverages, 43 states have repeat 
offender laws; 36 states have both laws. These programs did not require 
new funds and continued post-SAFETEA-LU without reauthorization. 

[11] The strategic plan shall, at a minimum: (1) be approved by the 
state's traffic records coordinating committee; (2) identify and 
address existing deficiencies in a state's highway safety data and 
traffic records system; (3) specify how such deficiencies were 
identified; (4) prioritize the needs and set goals for improving the 
state highway safety data and traffic records system; (5) identify 
performance-based measures, including baseline or benchmark data, by 
which progress toward those goals will be determined; and (6) specify 
in terms of specific projects and systems how the state will use 408 
grant funds and other state funds to address the needs and goals 
identified in its strategic plan. 

[12] U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Report to Congress on Guidance and Oversight of State 
Highway Safety Grant Programs (Washington, D.C., April 2004). 

[13] GAO, Highway Safety: Better Guidance Could Improve Oversight of 
State Highway Safety Programs, GAO-03-474 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 21, 
2003). 

[14] Under SAFETEA-LU, NHTSA can carry forward any authorized Safety 
Belt Use grant funding that has not been awarded from one fiscal year 
to the next. No comparable statutory provision exists for the Child 
Safety and Booster Seat grant. 

[15] All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are 
eligible for each of the safety incentive grants. Also, the territories 
of Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Marianas Islands are eligible for the Safety Belt Use, 
Impaired Driving, and Traffic Safety Information Systems grant 
programs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is eligible for the 
Impaired Driving and Traffic Safety Information Systems grants. Dollar 
amounts in our figures include the 50 states, District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, the territories and BIA, but the focus of this report is 
the 50 states. 

[16] Since January 1, 2003, seven states have enacted and are enforcing 
primary safety belt laws. An eighth state, Indiana, had a primary 
safety belt law in effect prior to 2003 but was not eligible for the 
grant in fiscal year 2006 because the law excluded pickup trucks. 
Indiana has since modified its law and qualified for the grant in 
fiscal year 2007. A ninth state, Maine, also enacted a primary safety 
belt law, but it was not enforced in time to qualify for the grant in 
2007. 

[17] A Safety Belt Use grant is a one-time grant, which allows a state 
to qualify under only one category for the duration of the program. 

[18] The six states that enacted safety belt laws January 1, 2003, and 
before July 1, 2006, received their one-time grants in fiscal year 
2006. However, the 16 states that enacted laws before 2003 received a 
little over a third of their grant in 2006 and received the final 
installment of their grants in 2007. We counted them as receiving 
grants in both 2006 and 2007. 

[19] GAO-03-474. 

[20] $530,000 is funded by the Safety Belt Use Grant. 

[21] The state's goal is to decrease fatalities from 1,462 in the 2004 
base period to 1,433 by December 31, 2008. 

[22] We obtained this information by reviewing states' fiscal year 2007 
highway safety plans and fiscal year 2006 annual reports. The 
information in the plans and reports are not complete due to 
inconsistencies in how states prepared them. The level of detail in 
these plans varied by states, and we were unable to identify all of 
these activities. The examples we cite reflect the activities we 
identified in our analysis as well as in our visits to seven states. 

[23] Safe C.A.R.G.O. Program stands for Children And Restraints GO 
together. 

[24] Traditional holiday enforcement campaigns include Christmas, New 
Year's, Memorial Day weekend, Fourth of July, and Labor Day weekend. 

[25] ABATE is a not-for-profit safety, educational, charitable, and 
advocacy organization designed to promote motorcycle safety and protect 
motorcyclist rights. 

[26] According to NHTSA officials, states were expecting the Safety 
Belt Use grant program to be included in the reauthorization as early 
as 2003 and began taking steps to qualify for it before SAFETEA-LU was 
passed. 

[27] Indiana had a primary safety belt law in effect before 2003 but 
did not qualify for the Safety Belt Use grant in fiscal year 2006 
because the law excluded pickup trucks. Indiana modified its law and 
qualified for the grant in fiscal year 2007. We include Indiana as one 
of the eight states passing primary safety belt laws after fiscal year 
2003. 

[28] To qualify for the grant, states must have a law requiring that 
children under age 8 be restrained in a booster seat. States can also 
qualify for the grant if they exclude from this requirement younger 
children who have attained a height of 4 feet 9 inches or taller or 
weigh more than 65 pounds. 

[29] The combined funds include Impaired Driving grant funds carried 
forward from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. 

[30] The combined funds include fiscal year 2006 carry-forward funds 
and fiscal year 2007 funds. 

[31] U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, 
Audit of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Alcohol- 
Impaired Driving Traffic Safety Program, Report No. MH-2007-036 
(Washington, D.C., Mar. 5, 2007). 

[32] States can also qualify for Safety Belt Use grants in fiscal years 
2008 and 2009 by achieving a safety belt use rate of 85 percent. States 
achieving an 85 percent safety belt use rate would qualify for the same 
one-time grant received by states passing a primary safety belt law 
after December 31, 2002. According to a NHTSA official, relatively few 
states will receive the grant based on these criteria; five states have 
qualified for the grant under this criteria for 2008, and one state has 
a chance of qualifying in 2009. 

[33] GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability 
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, D.C.: 
Sept. 29, 2006). 

[34] GAO, Highlights of a Forum Convened by the Comptroller General of 
the United States: Transforming Transportation Policy for the 21st 
Century, GAO-07-1210SP (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 19, 2007). 

[35] National Surface Transportation and Revenue Study Commission, 
Transportation for Tomorrow (Washington, D.C., December 2007). 

[36] GAO, Highway Safety: Improved Monitoring and Oversight of Traffic 
Safety Data Program Are Needed, GAO-05-24 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 4, 
2004). 

[37] GAO-03-474. 

[38] We did not independently verify this data. 

[39] In addition to the five programs within our scope, we considered 
funding data from other highway safety grant programs. 

[40] We did not independently verify this data. 

[41] The five programs that were included in our review were the Safety 
Belt Use, Child Safety and Child Booster Seat Use, Alcohol Impaired 
Driving Countermeasures, Motorcyclist Safety, and State Traffic Safety 
Information Systems Improvement grant programs. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room LM: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 
Voice: (202) 512-6000: 
TDD: (202) 512-2537: 
Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: